Metaphors of Free Software

[Hugo Roy]

Hi,

Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea.
There?s a short article with some good metaphors:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx


Transparency: a car.

An open source license is like having the right to lift your car
bonnet to view the engine. If you use software but can?t see what
it?s doing behind the scenes, then it?s impossible to know what
it?s doing with your data or even if it?s secure. By making code
viewable by all, it?s much easier to spot and fix security flaws
and bugs, which is why many security standards, such as password
encryption, are open source.



Modification: a house

Open source is like buying a house and being free to decorate it
however you want, to build extensions or demolish walls.
Closed-source software strictly limits what you can do with it.



Accumulative: DNA:

Like a genome that keeps evolving, or the way academia builds upon
prior knowledge, open source is a way of ?standing on the shoulder
of giants?, by building on what exists, rather than starting from
scratch. This applies to everything from the code at the heart of
software and powering websites to design elements, which can
develop in an accumulative way, with anyone free to improve on the
work of those previously.


Collaborative: a coop

Like a co-op, but without membership. While code authors may still
own copyright on their code, by providing an open license, assets
are kept public and the user community can offer improvements,
fixes, language translations, design improvements, documentation
and so on. Eric S Raymond describes open source development as ?a
great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches out of
which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by
a succession of miracles?.



Democratic: a landslide

Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they
don?t like the leader. Open source projects have core maintainers
who have the final say over suggestions and contributions from the
user community but if they aren?t responsive, people can ?fork?
the software and build their own ?branch?. The content management
system Joomla, for instance, was forked from Mambo, after its
corporate owners started charging developers big fees.



I suppose we?re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and
source code for the list to be complete :-)


--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>

Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140923/1b210240/attachment.pgp>

[Erik Albers]

Post by Hugo Roy
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx
[...]
Democratic: a landslide
Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they
don?t like the leader.

what is this for a democracy where I can just set up my own country if I do't
like the leader, haha ?

Post by Hugo Roy
I suppose we?re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and
source code for the list to be complete :-)

I also like an analogy between Open Standards and screws/screwdrivers:
Industry decides for a standard for screws that is open to use and adopt. That
makes it very easy for the customers because they only need a generic
screwdriver to tighten all kinds of screws. And using the screw as a standard
you can build all kind of innovation on top of it.
The counterpart is specific screws used by the manufacturers to lock their
hardware, so you cannot open it anymore because you are in need of a specific
tool to open it. That is what we see more and more with these kindles and
apples and so on.


Best,
Erik

[Garreau, Alexandre]

Post by Erik Albers

Post by Hugo Roy
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx
[...]
Democratic: a landslide
Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they
don?t like the leader.

what is this for a democracy where I can just set up my own country if I do't
like the leader, haha ?

Yeah, it?s more Anarchy with panarchy principles? but we call it
Democratic because generally speaking people usually use it to speak
about non-coercive systems. Actually ?Anarchic? would better fit, but
usually people like ?Democratic?, even in its wrong meaning, and tend to
dislike ?Anarchic? or to understand it as ?disorder? or ?chaos?, because
of lot of old counter-propaganda against anarchism
(cf. /usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secA1.html with `apt-get install
anarchism' under Debian)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 948 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140924/a471bc8a/attachment.pgp>

[Michael Kesper]

Hi,

Post by Garreau, Alexandre

Post by Erik Albers

Post by Hugo Roy
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx
[...]
Democratic: a landslide
Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they
don?t like the leader.

what is this for a democracy where I can just set up my own country if I do't
like the leader, haha ?

Yeah, it?s more Anarchy with panarchy principles? but we call it
Democratic because generally speaking people usually use it to speak
about non-coercive systems. Actually ?Anarchic? would better fit, but
usually people like ?Democratic?, even in its wrong meaning, and tend to
dislike ?Anarchic? or to understand it as ?disorder? or ?chaos?, because
of lot of old counter-propaganda against anarchism
(cf. /usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secA1.html with `apt-get install
anarchism' under Debian)

I believe in anarchism as much as in communism. (To be clear: not at all).
I'd vote strongly to let politics and religion out of metaphors for Free
Software.

Bye
Michael

[theo.schmidt]

Am 25.09.2014 08:29, schrieb Michael Kesper:
...

Post by Michael Kesper
I believe in anarchism as much as in communism. (To be clear: not at all).
I'd vote strongly to let politics and religion out of metaphors for Free
Software.

I think Free Software *is* in itself a political principle. Certainly it
seems to me to have parallels to libertarian thinking (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism ), which itself has
parallels to anarchism.

In the not too far away day, when we will have programs or even machines
which are indistinguishable from humans, software will also have strong
impacts on religious thinking.

Cheers, Theo

[Garreau, Alexandre]

Post by theo.schmidt
...

Post by Michael Kesper
I believe in anarchism as much as in communism. (To be clear: not at all).
I'd vote strongly to let politics and religion out of metaphors for Free
Software.

I think Free Software *is* in itself a political principle. Certainly
it seems to me to have parallels to libertarian thinking (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism ), which itself has
parallels to anarchism.

Well, Libertarianism is constructed taking over anarchist ideas and
turning them back to justify capitalism. They?re two opposed
philosophies, yet anarchism have more in common with libertarianism than
with Nazism (aka. ?national-socialism?).

Yet if you see it from an anarchist point of view, you will find a lot
of common points with free software philosophy, and think the rest is
worthless, but you will think the same about libertarianism if you
believe more in libertarianism, the same for Nazism if you?re a neonazi.

As I said, Freedom is based on will, and is by definition what you want,
it?s an universal value and everybody would definitely agree on
it. Where we diverge is on ?What/How/Why is Freedom?. Free Software is a
lot more easily close to freedom than way complex/complete politic
philosophies, thus everybody agree on it, from anarchists to fascists,
including socialists/authoritarian-communists and
liberalists/libertarianists, it?s completely normal.

One common thing I see between quite all hackers I know is the strong
will of not linking free software with one particular ideology to
promote it. And it?s right, because it would link its success on one
thoughts structure, drastically reducing its chances of success.

For example, here in France (well, also in the rest of Europe, I think)
we see since some years a rise of extreme-right/national-socialism and
fascists/xenophobes ideas, and they?re rising more and more votes (here
that?s because the fascist are the only people who still vote, all the
other people are disenchanted of politics), so having them support
strongly free software is a good thing, because at least even when they
will be there at power we could still fight for free software.

And even if they don?t win, everybody is copying *all* their ideas, so
that even if they loose the people at power will be with fascists ideas
*comprising the support of free software upon all Nation*, isn?t that
great?

So I vote for keeping ?Democratic? in this comparison, even if I think
it?s a confuse and meaningless term, because doing so people could
indifferently interpret it as ?Populism?, ?National-*?, ?Panarchy?,
?Anarchism?, or everything else meeting their political thought, so that
everybody will keep supporting Free Software.

Post by theo.schmidt
In the not too far away day, when we will have programs or even
machines which are indistinguishable from humans, software will also
have strong impacts on religious thinking.

At each Science progress we have :p And yet we have religions? don?t
dream too much: religion is a really sticky thing, you can?t get rid of
it so easily just demonstrating it?s absurd, because it?s not based on
rational thought. Even showing them all demonstrations, scientific
possibilities and reasoning of the world, they could still find
something absurd to say which would be conceptually based on nothing
else but itself and be able to shout ?victory!? even when they loose.

PS: the worst part is I?m being serious, it?s not even a troll: having
free software not linked with any thought is great, because since we all
think it?s actually following our ideas, we would all agree that at the
end, since free software would be winning and it?d be actually following
our political ideas, our political thought would win, since it?s true.

[Nicolas JEAN]

Post by Erik Albers

Post by Hugo Roy
I suppose we?re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and
source code for the list to be complete :-)

Industry decides for a standard for screws that is open to use and adopt. That
makes it very easy for the customers because they only need a generic
screwdriver to tighten all kinds of screws. And using the screw as a standard
you can build all kind of innovation on top of it.
The counterpart is specific screws used by the manufacturers to lock their
hardware, so you cannot open it anymore because you are in need of a specific
tool to open it.

A tool that's preferably very, very expensive. And that you can only buy
from said hardware manufacturer. Because other companies aren't allowed
to build it let alone sell it to you, thanks to patents.
Yeah I'm starting to like this analogy, too :)

Nico

[Alessandro Rubini]

Hello.

I read the thread, and I disagree with all opinions expressed.

Software is information, and has zero marginal cost in replication and
spreading. Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak; people will
soon find the weak points of the metaphor, and disregard free
software. I quote the last posts here, to show a different point
of view, not because I've anything against people I quote.
This is good about file formats. We need to be interoperable, and we
need to reject technical choices designed to lock-in people. It is
unrelated with free software, although I'm now convinced we need to
win the file-format battle before we even fight the FS one with any
chance of success. (FWIW I changed my mind over the years, I argued
vehemently against this point of view when I was younger).

Post by Nicolas JEAN
A tool that's preferably very, very expensive. And that you can only
buy from said hardware manufacturer. Because other companies aren't
allowed to build it let alone sell it to you, thanks to patents.

Now, I wouldn't ever bring patents in a discussion about freedom,
especially patents about mechanical stuff. I'm personally convinced
that patents are nowadays detrimental to society in every field. but
most people think patents are the holy solution to save the poor and
smart inventor against big companies. Besides, people is happy
nowadays to have a very good tool even if it is unfixable because of
special screws. Who tried to fix stuff nowadays? Me and you: statistically
nobody.

Let's talk about freedom and rights. Whether patents are good or bad
is another topic that can only be introduced later. And people will
*not* agree about patents even after they agreed on user's protection.

I mean, if we look at ways to explain free software to the unaware, we
should avoid talking about patents. Patents are a good and hot topic
to discuss with informed people, not the ones that need "metaphors"
to get the basic concepts.

Post by Nicolas JEAN
But I like: "Proprietary software is like patented seed".

This works for you, because both ideas sound very bad to you. For too
many people, patents on seeds are the proper compensation for the ones
who make research for the benefit of mankind. I see no similarity
between seeds and software, I'm sorry.


If we need a metaphor to explain free software to people, we need to
remain in the field of information, of knowledge that can be spread at
no cost.

I usually refer to the market of lawyers and physicians, teaching in
general, fiscal consulting and architectural work. Each with its own
differences and limitations, they are information-based markets.

Information is available to everyone, but still I go to lawyers and
physicians rather than studying a completely new subject matter for
months/years. And the result I get back can be reused. Just like our
clients come to us instead of coding by themselves, and we don't put
any restrictions on what we deliver. And they even *pay* us for
free information, like we pay teachers and lawyers.

That said, software is so "technological", so "black box", so "illegal
to copy", so "intellectual property" and so "magic" in the end, that most
of my audience refuses to see that it is the *only* information that
is so constrained by a perverse market tradition -- a tradition that
was born especially because software was for an elite, not for everybody.

With this social environment, I wouldn't make comparisons with any
physical good, because such similarities just don't apply. Calling
information "products" helps spreading false views, and comparing with
real products brings to ideas like "the software industry" and
"intellectual property".

That said, I'm happy we have different views, and I'm ok with any
disagreement I might get back, whatever strong. Being different is
our biggest strength, not only our biggest weakness.

thanks for this discussion, and for reading so far
/alessandro

[Michael Kesper]

Hi Alessandro,

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Hello.
I read the thread, and I disagree with all opinions expressed.
Software is information, and has zero marginal cost in replication and
spreading. Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak; people will
soon find the weak points of the metaphor, and disregard free
software.

You gave me quite something to think about! :)

Bye
Michael

[Thomas Doczkal]

Post by Michael Kesper
Hi Alessandro,

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Software is information, and has zero marginal cost in replication and
spreading. Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak; people will
soon find the weak points of the metaphor, and disregard free
software.

Guido mentioned in his mail[1] a recipe (for cooking I imagine).
I think this is a good example as you have nearly as small costs for a
data medium (USB, CD or alike) as you have for a recipe book.
If you transfer this to software you will find out that software costs
money as well. At least someone (if not you) has to pay the bill to
store the software created and the energy consumption. Even if you use a
LiveCD and storage like github storing the data costs money and this
might be more then most people might think.

You might interfere here and say in times of cloud storage you won't
have to pay for a few gigabyte of data you store. That might be true and
you won't have to pay with money but in the end you pay, the one or
other way. But I think that's a different topic.

Even though a metaphor is never perfect it gives a picture of what you
want to say and most often even non-technical people can get an idea of
your message behind that. For some people a screw driver is closer
related to there daily work or free time activities then a (cooking)
recipe so it might be worse to find a metaphor suitable for the audience
you are talking to.

That are just my two cents.

Best Regards,
Thomas


[1] http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2014-October/010296.html

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20141002/45826e56/attachment.pgp>

[Alessandro Rubini]

Post by Thomas Doczkal

Post by Alessandro Rubini
Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak;

Guido mentioned in his mail[1] a recipe (for cooking I imagine).

Yes. And, in some environments, it is good. I use it myself (as I said
in the other thread, side B of my business card is a bugged recipe).
But a recipe is information, it is not a physical good. It is *used*
to produce a service and a benefit, but it pure information. Like
musical scores.

Post by Thomas Doczkal
Even though a metaphor is never perfect it gives a picture of what you
want to say and most often even non-technical people can get an idea of
your message behind that.

Yes. But sometimes they are *only* good for non-technical people.

Recipes and music scores (i.e. recipes for food and recipes for music)
are usually not good examples to bring to the attention of people who
use software daily, because they know the respective complexity
differs by several magnitudes. They usually agree recipes and scores
might be free -- which they more or less are, because no policeman
will break into your home if you play your favorite hit on your own
piano). But they usually get reinforced in the idea that software
should not, because it costs man-years. I here them saying: "If you
claim it's *only* like recipes, then I know it's different and it's
exactly the difference that voids your own argument".

Actually, people skilled in the art can "easily" (for some meaning
of the word) replicate a recipe or a song. That's because the work of
art is completely perceived at each individual run, and thus it is
quickly replicated: you can build on that knowledge and go
further. The same happens with novels and most other copyrighted
works.

Post by Thomas Doczkal
I think this is a good example as you have nearly as small costs for a
data medium (USB, CD or alike) as you have for a recipe book.

Recipes don't travel on books -- not only on books. Most of mine
follow peer-to-peer: friends and relatives, and I'm sure this applies
to most people. Thus your problem with storage and the cloud doesn't
apply.

Post by Thomas Doczkal
For some people a screw driver is closer related to there daily work

Yes. Then talk about interoperable file formats using screwdrivers as
your example. Explain how "pdf" files can be read by many tools, not
only the one our public sector advertizes (btw, I usually acknowledge
that the company who designed the format explicitly allowed competing
implementation of readers and writers).

The problem of access to information is wider than free software; we
can spread awareness without bringing in the obscure "software" world.

Post by Thomas Doczkal
You might interfere here and say in times of cloud storage [...]
But I think that's a different topic.

It is. And a very important one. I'm sometimes disappointed at how we
are still discussing about dynamic linking of GPL code, and the C API
and inline functions in headers ("we" is not this list, it's FS people
at large). The world has changed, those paradigms cover a very little
fraction of today's reality. I know the same issues about freedom
apply (and even more), but to explain them we need new arguments
(which I can't offer, I'm sorry: this is a cry for help).

(Yes, I'm aware this list is public and I'm all for sensitive
topics to be discussed in private circles, gpg-encrypted if possible).

Post by Thomas Doczkal
That are just my two cents.
Best Regards,
Thomas

Thanks Thomas.

/alessandro, a little too verbose these days

[Guido Arnold]

Hello,

Post by Hugo Roy
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx
Modification: a house

I also like the plumbing analogy used in the GNU anniversary video:
http://www.gnu.org/fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.en.html

Guido
--
Guido Arnold Free Software Foundation Europe
http://blogs.fsfe.org/guido [] Edu team & German team
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x51628D75 [][][] Get active!
XMPP: guido at jabber.fsfe.org || http://fsfe.org/support/?guido
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140924/ee6fb948/attachment.pgp>

[theo.schmidt]

Am 24.09.2014 22:24, schrieb Guido Arnold:
...

Post by Hugo Roy
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx

I am surprised that an organisation called "Ethical Consumer" which
rates companies and products ehtically, itself uses what appears to be
Microsoft system (*.aspx) and links to Google and Facebook without
telling visitors. Can ethicalconsumer.org be considered an ethical or
even an impartial website?

Cheers, Theo

[Hugo Roy]

That seems worth pointing out to them. I don't know the organisation. I just saw the article.

[Michael Kesper]

Post by Hugo Roy
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx
Transparency: a car.
An open source license is like having the right to lift your car
bonnet to view the engine. If you use software but can?t see what
it?s doing behind the scenes, then it?s impossible to know what
it?s doing with your data or even if it?s secure. By making code
viewable by all, it?s much easier to spot and fix security flaws
and bugs, which is why many security standards, such as password
encryption, are open source.

Not a very good metaphor, mixing up things.
Transparency is good for "fiddling", hacking something (engine tuning
could be the metaphor).
We all know now (heartbleed, latest bash bug) definitely nobody should
believe just making something visible would be enough for making it
secure. It's a necessary precondition for being able to check code by
third parties, but not a sufficient one.

Bye
Michael

[Kim Tucker]

A free software application is like a 'life form' being released into an
(artificial virtual) ecosystem of (non-rivalrous digital) resources. The
code is its 'DNA' which may be adapted (or mutated) so that it better
functions in its environment. If a variation functions well, it will
reproduce (more copies, more users, ...).
The mutators ('genetic enginers' - software developers) can use strands of
DNA from other variations (forks), or even other species (other unrelated
libre software applications), to enhance the organism which reproduces
further to fill its niche.
The GNU GPL v 3 et seq. ensures that the evolution of other species in this
ecosystem is not restricted. Here the analogy ends. There is no GNU GPL v 3
equivalent for the real earthly world of finite rivalrous resources. Where
will we take real life with our ability to genetically modify it (including
ours)? Is there a need for restrictions? (another thread for some other
forum I suppose) .

Post by Hugo Roy
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensource.aspx
Transparency: a car.
An open source license is like having the right to lift your car
bonnet to view the engine. If you use software but can?t see what
it?s doing behind the scenes, then it?s impossible to know what
it?s doing with your data or even if it?s secure. By making code
viewable by all, it?s much easier to spot and fix security flaws
and bugs, which is why many security standards, such as password
encryption, are open source.
Modification: a house
Open source is like buying a house and being free to decorate it
however you want, to build extensions or demolish walls.
Closed-source software strictly limits what you can do with it.
Like a genome that keeps evolving, or the way academia builds upon
prior knowledge, open source is a way of ?standing on the shoulder
of giants?, by building on what exists, rather than starting from
scratch. This applies to everything from the code at the heart of
software and powering websites to design elements, which can
develop in an accumulative way, with anyone free to improve on the
work of those previously.
Collaborative: a coop
Like a co-op, but without membership. While code authors may still
own copyright on their code, by providing an open license, assets
are kept public and the user community can offer improvements,
fixes, language translations, design improvements, documentation
and so on. Eric S Raymond describes open source development as ?a
great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches out of
which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by
a succession of miracles?.
Democratic: a landslide
Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they
don?t like the leader. Open source projects have core maintainers
who have the final say over suggestions and contributions from the
user community but if they aren?t responsive, people can ?fork?
the software and build their own ?branch?. The content management
system Joomla, for instance, was forked from Mambo, after its
corporate owners started charging developers big fees.
I suppose we?re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and
source code for the list to be complete :-)
--
Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org>
Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal>
Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>
Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! <https://l.fsfe.org/nl>
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140928/998ba3cc/attachment-0001.html>

[lfodh]

Ahoy hoy Hugo et al.,

Post by Hugo Roy
Modification: a house
Open source is like buying a house and being free to decorate it
however you want, to build extensions or demolish walls.
Closed-source software strictly limits what you can do with it.

One of the best metaphors I've heard so far regarding modification (i.e.
derivative work) comes from my dear mother, who is quite into gardening
and roses. So.

Modification: Flowers for your garden

Free Software is like buying flowers for your garden. If the seed of
those flowers spreads and you get more flowers, you can give those
seeds or flowers away if you want to. Proprietary software is like
signing an agreement that you will never ever use or give away those
seeds or flowers.

And accordings to my mother, in the gardening community, such an idea
would be considered madness and an insult to the craft. ;)

Kind regards,
Simon

[Paul van der Vlis]

Post by lfodh
Modification: Flowers for your garden
Free Software is like buying flowers for your garden. If the seed of
those flowers spreads and you get more flowers, you can give those
seeds or flowers away if you want to. Proprietary software is like
signing an agreement that you will never ever use or give away those
seeds or flowers.
And accordings to my mother, in the gardening community, such an idea
would be considered madness and an insult to the craft. ;)

There are many patents on plants and seeds, see:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/
http://seedfreedom.in/learn/who-owns-the-seed/

But I like: "Proprietary software is like patented seed".

With regards,
Paul van der Vlis

[Nicolas JEAN]

Post by Paul van der Vlis

Post by lfodh
Modification: Flowers for your garden
Free Software is like buying flowers for your garden. If the seed of
those flowers spreads and you get more flowers, you can give those
seeds or flowers away if you want to. Proprietary software is like
signing an agreement that you will never ever use or give away those
seeds or flowers.
And accordings to my mother, in the gardening community, such an idea
would be considered madness and an insult to the craft. ;)

http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/
http://seedfreedom.in/learn/who-owns-the-seed/
But I like: "Proprietary software is like patented seed".

+1 !

[André Ockers]

Dear Fellows,

Free Software is like what I am to my employer.

She can use and study me, share me (temporary contract with another
employer) and "improve" me by using sticks and carrots.

Best Regards,

- --
Andr? Ockers
Fellow, Free Software Foundation Europe

ao at fsfe.org
GnuPG Key: F5FE3668

https://blogs.fsfe.org/ao