Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist

[Nomen Nescio]

Dr. Stallman said:

>   > > You have misunderstood freedom 0.  Freedom 0 means the program
>   > > does not impose limits on how you are allowed to use it.
>   > > Whether it does what you want in any given situation is
>   > > another question.
> 
>   > You might want to change the language of freedom 0 to match what
>   > you're saying above.
> 
> I don't see a reason for a change.  They already match as far as I
> can see.

I'll try to be more clear.  To convey what you said above, this text:

  "The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not
   forbidden or stopped from doing so."

would have to change to:

  "The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not
   forbidden from doing so."

The act of stopping someone from using software violates free-sw.html
even in the absense of a prohibition (because of the phrase "or
stopped").  Now you're saying to stop someone using a tool how they
want does not violate freedom 0.

>     > scenario 2) GCC is inherently capable of Lisp compilation
>     >             because all the working machinery for that is
>     >             already there for whatever reason.  But there is a
>     >             line of code saying "if lisp_code_found then
>     >             abort".
> 
> Freedom 0 has nothing to do with this.  The freedoms that are
> pertinent here are freedom 1, the freedom to delete that line, and
> freedom 3, the freedom to redistribute that modified version.

That would depend on whether freedom 0 contains the "or stopped"
phrase.

Indeed freedom 1 lifts the burdon of caring about freedom 0 in the GCC
scenario above, but that entails having freedom 1.

>   > In the case of GNU Radio Foundation, Inc., freedom 1 is useless for
>   > changing the code that executes on the server of CloudFlare,
>   > Inc. which discriminately blocks some users from reaching the
>   > documentation.
> 
> Even if that program is free software, that is CloudFlare's copy,
> not yours or mine.  We have no right to change the code in
> CloudFlare's server, just as CloudFlare has no right to change the
> copies of free software that we run on our servers.

Indeed, hence the problem.  Note however that we are not rendered
helpless by this problem.  We have a derivative right to protect GNU
users from CloudFlare's malicious code, a right that derives from our
right to decide whether to participate in the marketplace.  And when
choosing to do so, we have a right to select service providers.

Why have we chosen a service provider contrary to our values?  Why do
we allow this service provider to divide and attack some GNU users?

> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html
> may help clarify this.

That article actually affirms our duty to condemn CloudFlare.  It
states:

  "There is one case where a service is directly comparable to a
   program: when using the service is equivalent to having a copy of a
   hypothetical program and running it yourself. In this case, we call
   it ... Service as a Software Substitute..., and such a service is
   always a bad thing."

Jean Louis posted this link earlier:

  http://www.fromdev.com/2011/06/create-cdn-content-delivery-network.html

--
Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable.
List archives will be monitored.