[throwaway1723]

What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money?

That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).

[zozbot234]

Knowledge is built by iterating on previous knowledge - having freely available knowledge around on how to build turbines or reactors makes it far more feasible to develop better versions of those existing designs. It's not just about the money involved in construction, albeit that could be a factor too.

[jka]

Arguably safety can benefit, too. Open designs allow anyone to inspect both an initial design, and also the modifications that are made to that design over time.

[capableweb]

Because not everything in all contexts costs "money". Plenty of people have built turbines (or even reactors!) by collecting parts they either come by, get gifted from others or build themselves.

Believe it or not, some communities do help others without exchanging money, even though it's not very common. To be of the view that free knowledge is worthless because things cost money is a dangerous view that basically says you need to have money in order to take advantage of free knowledge.

[throwaway1723]

> by collecting parts they either come by

- Those were not produced for free

> get gifted from others

- Others paid for those

> build themselves

- Out of free materials or without any need to buy food and pay bills?

> things cost money is a dangerous view

It's dangerous only to idealistic outlook where money is evil and not a mere heat carrier.

Now, banksters' interest-driven monetary system based on debt is evil, but that's another topic.

[capableweb]

I'm not sure if you're purposefully not understanding my counter-argument, but I'm gonna assume you're arguing in good faith here.

Your original argument was that because "labor, materials, energy and machinery" cost money, there is no use of free knowledge.

My counter-argument is that the one with the knowledge is not necessarily the same person/community that provides the label, materials, energy and/or machinery.

So it's still useful to have free and open knowledge published and consumed, as you never know who can be helped by it, no matter if they have the funds to use it or not. Others might have the funds, and can help by providing material etc.

My argument was never that money is evil and shouldn't exist anywhere, not sure why you went there.

Hope this helps you understand what I meant with my previous comment.

[tdoering]

Money is not only saved on knowledge creation. Open designs facilitate construction and maintenance for users in developing countries. They can be adapted to local needs and the dependency on manufacturers is reduced.

[throwaway29389]

> What's the use in free knowledge

Wasn't this orange website supposed to be "Hackers" News?

[throwaway1723]

True that, but did anyone count how many tools created by hackers for hackers had enabled the furious growth of monstrosities like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc, which I guess can't be more opposite to ideals of hackers?

And on the other hand, did those tools empower hackers themselves? Other than quick and dirty prototypes, did those result in any products to empower common people? Last open source GSM phone project I was subscribed to lingered for years, postponed release for lack of funding and finally, I guess, was abandoned. But at the same time I see shop shelves crammed with dirt-cheap locked-down surveillance contraptions from big known corporations who shamelessly use FOSS tools in their development.

Or is it just an inevitable vicious cycle of all opposition becoming exactly the entity it opposed?