[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [security-discuss] [directory-discuss] directory purpose
From: |
Anonymous |
Subject: |
Re: [security-discuss] [directory-discuss] directory purpose |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:18:29 -0500 (EST) |
Svetlana Tkachenko posted here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-02/msg00042.html
and said:
> > It's not the GNU Radio program that violates the freedom 0
> > principle, it's the GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. An organization,
> > not a program.
>
> The software freedom principles apply to software only, not to
> organisations.
Your use of the word "apply" here is equivocal (a logical fallacy).
It's a way to force the language used in the discussion toward blatent
imprecision. And precision is important here. The verb "apply" is
ditransitive in this case.
Principles (of any kind) are only endorsed or condemned by people and
organizations. An object or data (software) cannot reason, and
therefore cannot develop principles or form opinions about them. Only
people (and groups thereof) can apply principles, or violate
principles.
When we say: <a software package> violates the freedom 0 principle, it
is a shortcut for saying: /the people/ who created that software
violated the freedom 0 principle through that creation. We now must
discard this language shortcut because you're using it as an
instrument to suppress the transparency of an attack on the freedom 0
principle.
The GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. violates the freedom 0 principle. They
conduct this violation not directly through their own software
creation. Their attack on the freedom 0 principle is carried out
against users of other GNU tools.
Although your argument is junked automatically due to equivocation, we
can still look at the idea you're trying to rally support for. That
is, the idea that the freedom 0 principle is limited, and only a
worthy when it affects the freedoms obtained through the use of an
author's creation exclusively, and not when a creator takes actions to
limit the utility of other peoples' work.
This is of course a lousy idea. Why would someone how embraces
freedom 0 want to have their freedom reduced? If you embrace freedom
0, it's because you don't want someone controlling how you use your
tools. If party A proactively forces artificial limitations on you
that reduces the utility of another tool you use (made by party B),
why would someone who embraces freedom 0 find this acceptable?
Microsoft's business strategy frequently leads them to break *other*
tools. It's for that reason that some people have embraced the free
software movement, a community that favors /cooperation/.
Without first understanding point 2, which was snipped from the post
you are replying:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-02/msg00040.html
you have little hope of understanding the other flaw of your claim.
This flaw entails neglecting the fact that people are their own judge
of the value and extent a principle can be used. The same flaw that
we continue to see reincarnated as a consequence of you not
understanding point 2.
--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so my address will be unusable.
List archives will be monitored.
- Re: [security-discuss] [directory-discuss] directory purpose,
Anonymous <=