You know, as in "katholikos" (greek for "universal"), the name by which James, bishop of Antioch called the Church in ~104 AD. Who's that guy? Oh, he's just some disciple of John the apostle who was consecrated by st. Peter (as in "first among the apostles", and also: first pope). *waves hand*;-D
Too bad the original version is written perfectly, by God. The version Luther seems to reverse-engineered from the one from catholicchurch.org repositories had a lot of bugs. Pope issued a bug reports, but Luther said it was a feature, and decided to fork off.
1) You're talking about crackers 2) Church has a long history of promoting the Truth, that is - Jesus Christ. But you wouldn't know that, would you, religious script kiddie?
Would you forgive me if I don't answer you? It's just I've been over this so many times it's coming out of my ears. Just... I don't have patience for writing it all over again.
I do not know what possibly is more detrimental to the relationship between God and his creation than sin of the creation. So, how does Church have authority to decide on these matters? However, note the verse 18 which you omitted from your "context", I'll refer to this later. It is the Church's tradition that is the Word of God (II Thessalonians 2:15), man is not promised to be preserved of heresy, but Church is (Matthew 16:18 - as the fathers of the Church always interpreted the meaning of 'gates of Hell' as 'tongues of heretics'). In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is said explicitly that prophecies (and logically likewise Bible) cannot be privately interpreted (II Peter 1:20). And heresy was always dealt with by councils (Acts 15:6). Notice, again Peter's prominence, as he was "first among apostles" (Matthew 10:2). Once more back to Mt16 to notice he was given the keys of the kingdom of God, that is, authority to rule, also confirmed in (John 21:17). You will notice in the same verse that these give the power to 'bind' and 'loose' - that is, decide what is true (Catholic) teaching and what is false. This is what I said I'd refer to later. The same thing is found in the mentioned verse 18 of the context of my quote. Church has this authority Martin Luthers of this world don't.
Pretty darn good, considering historical documents support it, and Matthew was written when, and by who? Probably not Matthew, since it was written after he died (approx 110-130 - except of course if you ask the church).
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but protestants also regard the Bible as word of God. So my argument is valid. And for the authorship and origin of Matthew, know that Catholic Church researches these things carefully: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm I'm not sure what your point is either.
Of course, even if it were written by Matthew, there's the various contradicting portions of the Bible. Like any thing in the Bible, one can easily find some part that says the opposite.
I understand how this may seem so to you. The fact is, Bible is a religious document meant to be interpreted by the Church. Yes, Holy Church predates Bible, has written it, and has canonized it.
The fact that there are dogmas does not exclude ability to read the Word and other religious works. It only excludes a false notion that one's own theology can be more correct than that of the Church.
II Peter 1:20. Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God.
Which is evident from this quote of His: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." --Matthew 18:17 </sarcasm>
How's your open source theology looking now? Matthew 16:18
Because it's a dichotomy. What else is there? The only alternative to both is anarchy, which I consider an intrinsically doomed idea. A lot of text behind that url, but it seems it is (surprisingly) trying to present anarchy as God-made. I don't believe so. But, is there any specific chapter you want me to read right now? There are works concerning the issue we've come to discuss (I think st. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), but I haven't read them, so I can't be of much help other than to say: whatever Church preaches to be true, I concur. My own "philosophy" is in that regard still superficial - it deals with the current order of the world, rather than trying to imagine an idealistic one (in most cases anyway).
Rules and regulations don't enforce themselves. Also note that the same thing you've described happens to people when they pirate or reverse engineer things, because the law grants author such rights. I'd much rather advocate pro-freedom laws.
Would you please drop it? I'm never gonna say that it's ok to take away someone's source code by invading his home. That is not to say the author shouldn't be obliged to provide source code. Fines on binary-only distributors are fine.
Clearly you don't believe in natural rights, so just what is your theory of rights? With all your talk of laws perhaps you're a legal rights purist or something?
Oh, but I do believe in natural rights, property included. However, I, much like Donald Knuth, lump code in the same category as math. I don't believe one should own math or software or be able to have patents on it. The problem is, as you rightly note, that software algorithms can be distributed in an obfuscated form - binary/executable. I don't believe this to be an inherent right of the source code copyright holder, and I don't see why I would (which should explain why I think making distributing binaries alone illegal isn't a big deal). Copyright itself is a late invention, with concepts inherited from the licensed printers, which are themselves a product of governmental bans on printing books. While I might see a benefit for it in the realm of books, I'm not convinced the same arguments applicable there can be also applied to software. You're welcome to convince me otherwise. I'd be glad to hear your arguments, because I admit (and I believe I've said so before), I'm not completely convinced in a copyright reform myself. Why do I keep saying "copyright"? Because it is copyright that grants users rights to take away/withold freedoms. I also believe this whole thing to be an issue of the copyright law because simply changing the form of the work doesn't make a new work. That is, compiled code is still that hidden source code even though it's in a (less)convenient form for the users. Similarly, if I were to compile leaked CounterStrike source, or Windows NT source, I wouldn't make an original product. I hope this makes sense.
I should note that even if you manage to convince me that source code is personal property regardless of its compiled form is given to the public, it still doesn't mean BSD is a good thing. There is absolutely no reason as to why one should (want to) support the opposing, non-free camp, if one cares about freedoms. Non-free software companies like to leech, I understand their motives. But the free software author's? Doesn't make sense to me.
If you want me to. But please don't make this an excuse to re-start the conversation then (if at all possible).
I apologize in advance for not making my first answer black or white (yes, or no) for you, as you'd probably like it. I honestly don't see it black and white. So here's my answer: Denying source code of a published original work (which does not integrate or build upon free software) is not a right. I tolerate it, because the big part of the industry relies on it, and I don't want to take anyone's bread away over night. However, I fully support copyleft efforts of changing that. So, not a right (as in: freedom), simply how the law works now. But if the law was different, if it mandated that software was free, I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact I'd support that law. And before you think you've got me again, please understand for once that I'm not talking about practical benefits for the society. And I certainly do not superimpose those above freedoms. "Your freedom to swing your fits ends where my nose begins". That is, it's not by denying freedoms (a freedom not to slave over a piece of code) that we should try to secure freedoms for the users. And mandating software to be free does not do that - it doesn't compromise RL freedoms. It just takes away a "right" to monopoly of one's own source. I don't consider monopoly to be beneficial for the society. So steps to take are 1) viral copyleft, 2) copyright reform (perhaps.. in the future).
Now, using software with no source is ok. However, this does not excuse the proprietor for not releasing the source. You'll have to forgive another analogy, but I personally view proprietary software users very much like I view smokers. That is, the evident demand for cigarettes does not exonerate tobacco manufacturers, or cigarette sellers. Using this stuff should not be criminalized just like that, but producing the stuff? That's another matter.
I have written a long reply and decided to discard it, and end the convo. I've said what I wanted to say. There's no benefit in repeating that, people can understand what you're saying and what I'm saying (freedoms != privileges) by now perfectly fine.
Not a quasi-freedom of denying other people their freedoms, no.
You didn't answer my comment about the contradiction between the four GPL freedoms being rights and people having a right to not publish their work. Are people free to not publish their work (or to only publish it partially, or to pick and choose who they send it to based on who voluntarily agrees to what conditions), or does that violate everyone elses' right to use the program (and to exercise the other GPL freedoms)?
I believe I have, and i referred to it above. There isn't a contradiction, it's simply a matter of priorities. People are free to withhold publishing the work if such act would compromise their privacy. Differing views behind AGPL which further address the issue of the extent of this freedom may be of interest. I suggest Eben Moglen's Google tech talk, and Bradley.M. Kuhn's general commentary on GPLv3. In any case, GPL is explicit about distribution being the occasion of sharing of code. It is saying: personal use possible, but when sharing modifications, share in fullness, so as to not deny/take away(the comparison still stands, think of children born as slaves) anyone their freedoms.
which is why I, despite the current law, call it taking freedoms away
What does law have to do with it? I'm not talking about software patents or anything. I'm talking about whether it's okay or not for an author to choose not to send their work out, or to make decisions about when and to whom they do the work of distributing their program. This is purely about voluntary agreements, not laws.
There are people who view EULA's as invalid agreements, since noone is actually signing it for the sake of receiving a software copy, it's rather happening post-facto (smth like that, I don't remember). But this is besides the case, I'm not going to argue this. The law I'm talking about is a copyright law, arguably unfit for the digital goods world. It is making able for authors to withhold rights from users. Whether there should not be such a possibility even for original work, I didn't decide yet (but I suggest reading 'Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive"' by zotz). However, there is absolutely no reason why one should support this behavior with his free code. Once again, GPL is only fair.
I might accept software patents as an obstruction to free software, but your answer here isn't correct. In cases where there's no free software alternative to some proprietary software, the lack of the free alternative is caused by the proprietary software adequately filling demand. That is not an obstruction.
Yes it would, as free software alternative would have less motive to be developed, or that same piece of proprietary code could've itself been free instead.
Lastly, why is using non-free software worse than nothing at all? Because if there wasn't proprietary software, you would either have a free software version, or nobody would.
Right, so what it all comes down to is that you don't want other people's demand for software to be met unless your demand is met as well. You prefer that everybody do without rather than allow other people to have their demand met while yours isn't. This isn't because other people want to have and prevent you from having the same, it's because other people have lesser demands and once their lesser demands are satisfied there just aren't enough people with your higher demands to actually justify the resource expenditure* of meeting your higher demands.
You might find Frederic Bastiat's The Law and Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson enlightening.
Or I want all people to have equal freedoms, rather than satisfying for black boxes. Yes, you'r
One thing I appreciate is that, to the best of my knowledge RMS has never once advocated using any kind of force or aggressive violence to coerce anyone into making their software 'free' (by his definition). Instead he's done this thing with the GPL where his agenda is advanced when people voluntarily agree to be bound by its conditions. I heartily support people making such voluntary agreements.
I'm not sure if there's anything else to discuss here. I see freedom as a must, and you don't. I see freedoms as something that should be necessary given to everyone (much like personal freedom is), which is why I, despite the current law, call it taking freedoms away. And to iterate my argument one last time, your BSD licensed software enables this (whatever the name you choose for it).
Well you alluded to some proprietary software we'd be better off without and claimed that proprietary software created some kind of obstruction to free software. I still don't see why proprietary software is evil, or why I'm better off not being able to do something I want to (in the case that a free alternative isn't available).
My argument is that precisely because of the existence of proprietary software, you often may not have free software (alternatives) - eg. graphics drivers come to mind. The obstruction I'm talking about is the old-world model of "granting" or even selling licenses (which take away freedoms) pretending there's scarcity where there isn't. This has such deep roots that even the viral nature of GPL has hard time plucking out. BSD, worth noting, does nothing to do help the situation. It enables non-free software to at least always be one step ahead.. So this law-granted monopolistic approach of selling software as if it was a tangible (unreproducable) product is here to stay for a while more. Lastly, why is using non-free software worse than nothing at all? Because if there wasn't proprietary software, you would either have a free software version, or nobody would. And in the latter case, this demand would ideally be satisfiable through commercial free software models. Etc.
I hope this answers your subsequent questions. With this post, I've expressed my opinion as clearly as possible. In the case you disagree, let as not go back and forth forever, but instead recognize that our differences stem from different views on the importance of freedoms. Thanks.
That post explains that no derivative of a BSD project can possible take anyone's freedoms
You simply didn't. Your argument was that since your contribution is free, you're not responsible if others use it to create software which *denies* certain freedoms to their users (maybe that terminology better suits you than "taking away" freedoms, given that you do not see freedoms as rights, but as privileges granted by the monopolist). You are responsible, since you allowed this.
You need to point out what freedoms exactly are taken away when someone creates a proprietary derivative work from and open source project. The fact is that the original code can't be close-sourced by a derivative and therefore all the same freedoms are available.
I think I've sufficiently addressed this now (and I believe you know which are 4 freedoms), however, I'd like to point out that you're confusing the original with the derivative here. While your software is truly free, it is truly (part of) non-free software as well, considering that you have contributed to it by your explicit permission.
Allow me to cite this in it entirety:
The only way to claim you are 'less free' is if you use a definition which has absolutely untenable implications. That is, you say you are less free when proprietary software exists because you are comparing your freedom in that case to a counter-factual where the only difference is that that proprietary software is open source. Besides the fact that such a counter-factual is not always valid (i.e., the software may not have been developed at all if the option to make it proprietary wasn't available), if you count such counter-factuals then you should count them all (or at least explain why only this one counts).
I had to read between the lines here, so tell me if I don't address the point: First of all, notice that you are making your own case based on a counter-factual. You assume that we would miss something by not having software that denies most of the freedoms. But not having _some_ proprietary software is better than the current situation. Any lacking software is sure to be replaced (I'm confident that no "innovation", given time, is unreproducible by someone else). Moreover, current models of selling software would be substituted with those that are suitable for free software. Free software would fill the missing holes instead of being obstructed as it is now. Fact is, we are missing free software we'd have had it not been for proprietary software schemes. Your other point, I believe was: Why is a right to privately modify exempt from copy-left. I'm guessing privacy trumps hypothetical (or as you call it "counter factual") social benefit from such code. If we advocated compulsory distribution of modifications, we'd by the same logic indeed have to advocate forcing developers to work, as you've said. Instead, we're saying: _If_ you want to modify software that we've given you freely and then provide your modifications to the public (ie, for non-personal use), _then_ give the users the same freedoms you've been given. It's only fair. You can't say that a world where everyone acts according to this would be a worse one because it may momentarily lack some software.
(quote about compulsory writing code omitted as it has been addressed in the prior paragraph).
you BSD guys just don't see non-free software as evil
Right, because it's not. If someone creates proprietary software I'm no worse of than if they had created nothing, and in fact I may be better off. Even if I only use open source software I'm no worse off because proprietary software doesn't stop me from making or using free alternatives. On the other hand you say
I disagree, and I hope the reader by now can understand why.
It's better not to have proprietary software at all: Software will be substituted eventual
If you write BSD code, you are a creator of proprietary software, as much as you're a creator of free software. You are *both*. You contribute to a project that takes freedom away from its users. It doesn't matter that your contributions are also free, the whole isn't. For that one user of, freedom is withheld due to your decision to give the slave driver the ability to enslave. It is like saying: I simply provided the guns, I'm not responsible for the killings. Well, when you provide a gun to a murderer. You are. GPL is a way of avoid doing that.
It's reciprocal. Really, you BSD guys just don't see non-free software as evil, that's what the problem is. It's better not to have proprietary software at all: Software will be substituted eventually, while having non-free software would just postpone that with freedoms lost in the meantime (Would this be a worse world without Windows? Are you sure?). Comparing the ability to make private modifications with the ability to use in non-free software thus fails. It's not the same.
Free software is an ideology. You either think it's important, or you don't. Thinking it's nice to have it is not really middle ground.
There are a lot of things online of questionable trustworthiness. Nevertheless, thanks for the link. Will look into, although I don't believe homosexually is inherited.
If sexual abuse does make a victim sexually crippled (as I'm sure it does), which I guess makes your argument valid, it still doesn't make the original argument sufficient. For example, abuse of a genetically unfit victim would, by that logic, be a good thing for the society, having prevented proliferation of "bad" genes.
(coincidentally - any possible traits determining homosexuality in human males appear to result in greater fertility of their sisters and their offspring...); [citation needed]
the genetic future of the parent of that child is threatened.
I'd just like to point out that that is a poor argument against pedophilia (although may be an understandable one for a moral relativist). By that logic anyone influencing children to become asocial (take, say, CS teachers) should be, in your words, "banished to northern greenland".;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't ask me why forks. I'm Catholic :-)
You know, as in "katholikos" (greek for "universal"), the name by which James, bishop of Antioch called the Church in ~104 AD. Who's that guy? Oh, he's just some disciple of John the apostle who was consecrated by st. Peter (as in "first among the apostles", and also: first pope). *waves hand* ;-D
Uffff :-)
Too bad the original version is written perfectly, by God.
The version Luther seems to reverse-engineered from the one from catholicchurch.org repositories had a lot of bugs.
Pope issued a bug reports, but Luther said it was a feature, and decided to fork off.
1) You're talking about crackers
2) Church has a long history of promoting the Truth, that is - Jesus Christ. But you wouldn't know that, would you, religious script kiddie?
Must note it's a small sample
Would you forgive me if I don't answer you? It's just I've been over this so many times it's coming out of my ears. Just... I don't have patience for writing it all over again.
I do not know what possibly is more detrimental to the relationship between God and his creation than sin of the creation. So, how does Church have authority to decide on these matters? However, note the verse 18 which you omitted from your "context", I'll refer to this later.
It is the Church's tradition that is the Word of God (II Thessalonians 2:15), man is not promised to be preserved of heresy, but Church is (Matthew 16:18 - as the fathers of the Church always interpreted the meaning of 'gates of Hell' as 'tongues of heretics'). In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is said explicitly that prophecies (and logically likewise Bible) cannot be privately interpreted (II Peter 1:20). And heresy was always dealt with by councils (Acts 15:6). Notice, again Peter's prominence, as he was "first among apostles" (Matthew 10:2). Once more back to Mt16 to notice he was given the keys of the kingdom of God, that is, authority to rule, also confirmed in (John 21:17). You will notice in the same verse that these give the power to 'bind' and 'loose' - that is, decide what is true (Catholic) teaching and what is false. This is what I said I'd refer to later. The same thing is found in the mentioned verse 18 of the context of my quote. Church has this authority Martin Luthers of this world don't.
Pretty darn good, considering historical documents support it, and Matthew was written when, and by who? Probably not Matthew, since it was written after he died (approx 110-130 - except of course if you ask the church).
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but protestants also regard the Bible as word of God. So my argument is valid.
And for the authorship and origin of Matthew, know that Catholic Church researches these things carefully: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
I'm not sure what your point is either.
Of course, even if it were written by Matthew, there's the various contradicting portions of the Bible. Like any thing in the Bible, one can easily find some part that says the opposite.
I understand how this may seem so to you. The fact is, Bible is a religious document meant to be interpreted by the Church. Yes, Holy Church predates Bible, has written it, and has canonized it.
The fact that there are dogmas does not exclude ability to read the Word and other religious works. It only excludes a false notion that one's own theology can be more correct than that of the Church.
II Peter 1:20. Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
teaching that one's relationship with God was between them and God.
Which is evident from this quote of His: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." --Matthew 18:17
</sarcasm>
How's your open source theology looking now?
Matthew 16:18
Will read when i get the chance. I hope. Thanks for the conversation.
Because it's a dichotomy. What else is there? The only alternative to both is anarchy, which I consider an intrinsically doomed idea.
A lot of text behind that url, but it seems it is (surprisingly) trying to present anarchy as God-made. I don't believe so. But, is there any specific chapter you want me to read right now?
There are works concerning the issue we've come to discuss (I think st. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), but I haven't read them, so I can't be of much help other than to say: whatever Church preaches to be true, I concur. My own "philosophy" is in that regard still superficial - it deals with the current order of the world, rather than trying to imagine an idealistic one (in most cases anyway).
Rules and regulations don't enforce themselves. Also note that the same thing you've described happens to people when they pirate or reverse engineer things, because the law grants author such rights. I'd much rather advocate pro-freedom laws.
Would you please drop it? I'm never gonna say that it's ok to take away someone's source code by invading his home. That is not to say the author shouldn't be obliged to provide source code. Fines on binary-only distributors are fine.
Clearly you don't believe in natural rights, so just what is your theory of rights? With all your talk of laws perhaps you're a legal rights purist or something?
Oh, but I do believe in natural rights, property included. However, I, much like Donald Knuth, lump code in the same category as math. I don't believe one should own math or software or be able to have patents on it. The problem is, as you rightly note, that software algorithms can be distributed in an obfuscated form - binary/executable. I don't believe this to be an inherent right of the source code copyright holder, and I don't see why I would (which should explain why I think making distributing binaries alone illegal isn't a big deal). Copyright itself is a late invention, with concepts inherited from the licensed printers, which are themselves a product of governmental bans on printing books. While I might see a benefit for it in the realm of books, I'm not convinced the same arguments applicable there can be also applied to software. You're welcome to convince me otherwise. I'd be glad to hear your arguments, because I admit (and I believe I've said so before), I'm not completely convinced in a copyright reform myself. Why do I keep saying "copyright"? Because it is copyright that grants users rights to take away/withold freedoms.
I also believe this whole thing to be an issue of the copyright law because simply changing the form of the work doesn't make a new work. That is, compiled code is still that hidden source code even though it's in a (less)convenient form for the users. Similarly, if I were to compile leaked CounterStrike source, or Windows NT source, I wouldn't make an original product. I hope this makes sense.
I should note that even if you manage to convince me that source code is personal property regardless of its compiled form is given to the public, it still doesn't mean BSD is a good thing. There is absolutely no reason as to why one should (want to) support the opposing, non-free camp, if one cares about freedoms. Non-free software companies like to leech, I understand their motives. But the free software author's? Doesn't make sense to me.
If you want me to. But please don't make this an excuse to re-start the conversation then (if at all possible).
I apologize in advance for not making my first answer black or white (yes, or no) for you, as you'd probably like it. I honestly don't see it black and white. So here's my answer: Denying source code of a published original work (which does not integrate or build upon free software) is not a right. I tolerate it, because the big part of the industry relies on it, and I don't want to take anyone's bread away over night. However, I fully support copyleft efforts of changing that. So, not a right (as in: freedom), simply how the law works now. But if the law was different, if it mandated that software was free, I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact I'd support that law. And before you think you've got me again, please understand for once that I'm not talking about practical benefits for the society. And I certainly do not superimpose those above freedoms. "Your freedom to swing your fits ends where my nose begins". That is, it's not by denying freedoms (a freedom not to slave over a piece of code) that we should try to secure freedoms for the users. And mandating software to be free does not do that - it doesn't compromise RL freedoms. It just takes away a "right" to monopoly of one's own source. I don't consider monopoly to be beneficial for the society. So steps to take are 1) viral copyleft, 2) copyright reform (perhaps.. in the future).
Now, using software with no source is ok. However, this does not excuse the proprietor for not releasing the source. You'll have to forgive another analogy, but I personally view proprietary software users very much like I view smokers. That is, the evident demand for cigarettes does not exonerate tobacco manufacturers, or cigarette sellers. Using this stuff should not be criminalized just like that, but producing the stuff? That's another matter.
Peace be with you.
P.S. You might perhaps want to check out the idea of "Distributism" (as opposed to both capitalism and socialism). I think it fits very well with free software, and a free software commercial model I've presented in http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/community_posts/pay_patch_free_software_market_model
I have written a long reply and decided to discard it, and end the convo. I've said what I wanted to say. There's no benefit in repeating that, people can understand what you're saying and what I'm saying (freedoms != privileges) by now perfectly fine.
I see freedom as a must, and you don't.
but obviously not all freedoms.
Not a quasi-freedom of denying other people their freedoms, no.
You didn't answer my comment about the contradiction between the four GPL freedoms being rights and people having a right to not publish their work. Are people free to not publish their work (or to only publish it partially, or to pick and choose who they send it to based on who voluntarily agrees to what conditions), or does that violate everyone elses' right to use the program (and to exercise the other GPL freedoms)?
I believe I have, and i referred to it above. There isn't a contradiction, it's simply a matter of priorities. People are free to withhold publishing the work if such act would compromise their privacy. Differing views behind AGPL which further address the issue of the extent of this freedom may be of interest. I suggest Eben Moglen's Google tech talk, and Bradley .M. Kuhn's general commentary on GPLv3. In any case, GPL is explicit about distribution being the occasion of sharing of code. It is saying: personal use possible, but when sharing modifications, share in fullness, so as to not deny/take away(the comparison still stands, think of children born as slaves) anyone their freedoms.
which is why I, despite the current law, call it taking freedoms away
What does law have to do with it? I'm not talking about software patents or anything. I'm talking about whether it's okay or not for an author to choose not to send their work out, or to make decisions about when and to whom they do the work of distributing their program. This is purely about voluntary agreements, not laws.
There are people who view EULA's as invalid agreements, since noone is actually signing it for the sake of receiving a software copy, it's rather happening post-facto (smth like that, I don't remember). But this is besides the case, I'm not going to argue this. The law I'm talking about is a copyright law, arguably unfit for the digital goods world. It is making able for authors to withhold rights from users. Whether there should not be such a possibility even for original work, I didn't decide yet (but I suggest reading 'Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive"' by zotz). However, there is absolutely no reason why one should support this behavior with his free code. Once again, GPL is only fair.
I might accept software patents as an obstruction to free software, but your answer here isn't correct. In cases where there's no free software alternative to some proprietary software, the lack of the free alternative is caused by the proprietary software adequately filling demand. That is not an obstruction.
Yes it would, as free software alternative would have less motive to be developed, or that same piece of proprietary code could've itself been free instead.
Lastly, why is using non-free software worse than nothing at all? Because if there wasn't proprietary software, you would either have a free software version, or nobody would.
Right, so what it all comes down to is that you don't want other people's demand for software to be met unless your demand is met as well. You prefer that everybody do without rather than allow other people to have their demand met while yours isn't. This isn't because other people want to have and prevent you from having the same, it's because other people have lesser demands and once their lesser demands are satisfied there just aren't enough people with your higher demands to actually justify the resource expenditure* of meeting your higher demands.
You might find Frederic Bastiat's The Law and Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson enlightening.
Or I want all people to have equal freedoms, rather than satisfying for black boxes. Yes, you'r
One thing I appreciate is that, to the best of my knowledge RMS has never once advocated using any kind of force or aggressive violence to coerce anyone into making their software 'free' (by his definition). Instead he's done this thing with the GPL where his agenda is advanced when people voluntarily agree to be bound by its conditions. I heartily support people making such voluntary agreements.
I'm not sure if there's anything else to discuss here. I see freedom as a must, and you don't. I see freedoms as something that should be necessary given to everyone (much like personal freedom is), which is why I, despite the current law, call it taking freedoms away. And to iterate my argument one last time, your BSD licensed software enables this (whatever the name you choose for it).
Well you alluded to some proprietary software we'd be better off without and claimed that proprietary software created some kind of obstruction to free software. I still don't see why proprietary software is evil, or why I'm better off not being able to do something I want to (in the case that a free alternative isn't available).
My argument is that precisely because of the existence of proprietary software, you often may not have free software (alternatives) - eg. graphics drivers come to mind.
The obstruction I'm talking about is the old-world model of "granting" or even selling licenses (which take away freedoms) pretending there's scarcity where there isn't. This has such deep roots that even the viral nature of GPL has hard time plucking out. BSD, worth noting, does nothing to do help the situation. It enables non-free software to at least always be one step ahead.. So this law-granted monopolistic approach of selling software as if it was a tangible (unreproducable) product is here to stay for a while more.
Lastly, why is using non-free software worse than nothing at all? Because if there wasn't proprietary software, you would either have a free software version, or nobody would. And in the latter case, this demand would ideally be satisfiable through commercial free software models. Etc.
I hope this answers your subsequent questions. With this post, I've expressed my opinion as clearly as possible. In the case you disagree, let as not go back and forth forever, but instead recognize that our differences stem from different views on the importance of freedoms.
Thanks.
That post explains that no derivative of a BSD project can possible take anyone's freedoms
You simply didn't. Your argument was that since your contribution is free, you're not responsible if others use it to create software which *denies* certain freedoms to their users (maybe that terminology better suits you than "taking away" freedoms, given that you do not see freedoms as rights, but as privileges granted by the monopolist). You are responsible, since you allowed this.
You need to point out what freedoms exactly are taken away when someone creates a proprietary derivative work from and open source project. The fact is that the original code can't be close-sourced by a derivative and therefore all the same freedoms are available.
I think I've sufficiently addressed this now (and I believe you know which are 4 freedoms), however, I'd like to point out that you're confusing the original with the derivative here. While your software is truly free, it is truly (part of) non-free software as well, considering that you have contributed to it by your explicit permission.
Allow me to cite this in it entirety:
The only way to claim you are 'less free' is if you use a definition which has absolutely untenable implications. That is, you say you are less free when proprietary software exists because you are comparing your freedom in that case to a counter-factual where the only difference is that that proprietary software is open source. Besides the fact that such a counter-factual is not always valid (i.e., the software may not have been developed at all if the option to make it proprietary wasn't available), if you count such counter-factuals then you should count them all (or at least explain why only this one counts).
I had to read between the lines here, so tell me if I don't address the point: First of all, notice that you are making your own case based on a counter-factual. You assume that we would miss something by not having software that denies most of the freedoms. But not having _some_ proprietary software is better than the current situation. Any lacking software is sure to be replaced (I'm confident that no "innovation", given time, is unreproducible by someone else). Moreover, current models of selling software would be substituted with those that are suitable for free software. Free software would fill the missing holes instead of being obstructed as it is now. Fact is, we are missing free software we'd have had it not been for proprietary software schemes.
Your other point, I believe was: Why is a right to privately modify exempt from copy-left. I'm guessing privacy trumps hypothetical (or as you call it "counter factual") social benefit from such code. If we advocated compulsory distribution of modifications, we'd by the same logic indeed have to advocate forcing developers to work, as you've said. Instead, we're saying: _If_ you want to modify software that we've given you freely and then provide your modifications to the public (ie, for non-personal use), _then_ give the users the same freedoms you've been given. It's only fair. You can't say that a world where everyone acts according to this would be a worse one because it may momentarily lack some software.
(quote about compulsory writing code omitted as it has been addressed in the prior paragraph).
you BSD guys just don't see non-free software as evil
Right, because it's not. If someone creates proprietary software I'm no worse of than if they had created nothing, and in fact I may be better off. Even if I only use open source software I'm no worse off because proprietary software doesn't stop me from making or using free alternatives. On the other hand you say
I disagree, and I hope the reader by now can understand why.
It's better not to have proprietary software at all: Software will be substituted eventual
If you write BSD code, you are a creator of proprietary software, as much as you're a creator of free software. You are *both*. You contribute to a project that takes freedom away from its users. It doesn't matter that your contributions are also free, the whole isn't. For that one user of, freedom is withheld due to your decision to give the slave driver the ability to enslave. It is like saying: I simply provided the guns, I'm not responsible for the killings. Well, when you provide a gun to a murderer. You are. GPL is a way of avoid doing that.
It's reciprocal. Really, you BSD guys just don't see non-free software as evil, that's what the problem is. It's better not to have proprietary software at all: Software will be substituted eventually, while having non-free software would just postpone that with freedoms lost in the meantime (Would this be a worse world without Windows? Are you sure?). Comparing the ability to make private modifications with the ability to use in non-free software thus fails. It's not the same.
Free software is an ideology. You either think it's important, or you don't. Thinking it's nice to have it is not really middle ground.
There are a lot of things online of questionable trustworthiness. Nevertheless, thanks for the link. Will look into, although I don't believe homosexually is inherited.
If sexual abuse does make a victim sexually crippled (as I'm sure it does), which I guess makes your argument valid, it still doesn't make the original argument sufficient. For example, abuse of a genetically unfit victim would, by that logic, be a good thing for the society, having prevented proliferation of "bad" genes.
(coincidentally - any possible traits determining homosexuality in human males appear to result in greater fertility of their sisters and their offspring...); [citation needed]
the genetic future of the parent of that child is threatened.
I'd just like to point out that that is a poor argument against pedophilia (although may be an understandable one for a moral relativist). By that logic anyone influencing children to become asocial (take, say, CS teachers) should be, in your words, "banished to northern greenland". ;-)