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

[Anonymous]

Alfred M. Szmidt said:

>    >    That it works on your side, it means not it works on
>    >    someone's else side.
>    > 
>    > Indeed, and we are not required to make it work for everyone.
> 
>    You've misunderstood the problem.  It's not that GNU Radio
>    Foundation, Inc. is not taking actions to make something work,
>    it's that GRFI has taken actions to break something that was
>    working.  They have "stopped" tor wget users from making use of
>    freedom 0.
> 
> Freedom 0 does not give you a right to access someone elses software
> on a different machine.

Freedom 0 (from free-sw.html) doesn't give any rights whatsoever.
That document is not legally binding.  You're apparently reading a
different version of freedom 0, one that has been adapted from
free-sw.html as a legal instrument.  The quoted text above is
regarding Freedom 0 as written in free-sw.html, which is pure
philosophy, not the text of a license.

None of the language in free-sw.html contains any exception as far as
what mechanisms may or may not be used to /stop/ someone using
software, apart from exception that was mentioned by Brandon, which
has no such clause regarding what runs on other machines.

> It only gives you the right to use the software that you _already_
> have, on _your_ machine.  That is all Freedom 0 says.

That is not "all" it says.  If we're talking about the Freedom 0 from
free-sw.html, it also says that user may use the software *how they
want to*.  You have the same misunderstanding Brandon does, in
thinking that it's merely a right to run the code (the use of which
may then be controlled by someone other than the user).

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