Words matter, but you are the one who is using dishonest propaganda.

You seem to think that granting additional freedoms conditional on preserving them to others is a restriction merely because it is not unconditional, or because it is less that you hoped.

But you've had to resort to faulty analogies to make the argument because otherwise it could be dismissed as easily as I have just done: A conditional freedom is not a restriction, it is just a definition of the freedom.

Nonsense. When providing the car, you are transferring ownership to your uncontested property.

When providing a binary based on someone else's source it is not your uncontested property. And without a license you have absolutely no rights to distribute that binary. The media may be your uncontested property but the binary is not.

The trouble with an analogy is that you have to prove your point with the analogy and then prove that the analogy applies. You get two arguments instead of one.

You were actually discussing the conditional transference of a car that was your property.

Rubbish, copyright was being excercised to his detriment, not undermined

Well, I based my guess on the monied lobies that argue for it and keep extending it. You may be right, and I suspect that when/if you are there will be other great social upheavels.

Your argument remains, in the dust. You've repeated your argument but now I invite you to see the state without any confusing car analogies:

If I have a copy of someone else's software, I have the capability to distribute copies, but not the freedom to do so.

If I have a copy of someone else's software and a GPL license then I also have a freedom to distribute the software.

The license did not restrict me, but gave me a freedom I did not previously have. Without the GPL I could not distribute binaries OR source. The GPL gives permission to distribute binaries+source. Because it doesn't give you freedom to distribute just binaries you call it a restriction!

I wonder if your argument is really that if RMS were supporting "freedom" that he would have chosen the BSD license or recommended public domain because they offer more "freedom"?
Is that so? If so you could make it without resorting to car analogies.

The answer would be that GPL preserves the freedom for more people. Perhaps RMS doesn't want more quantities of "freedom" hoarded up in a few places, perhaps he wants all people to be free.

But even then, your accusation does not apply; even though you might not be satisfied with the additional freedoms you have on someone else's property.

I can't explain the point he was trying to make. I don't think his analogy helped. I think his claim was that the GPL removed freedom.

Without a licence I can possess a copy of someone else's software and have the capability but not freedom to distribute copies.

With the GPL licence I get a freedom to distribute copies.

The licence added freedom I did not have before.

The licence is only relevant to one who does not have rights of ownership to the software and therefore has capability but not freedom.

He can argue that the BSD licence gives more freedom and he would be right, but the GPL gives preserves freedom to more people.

But he didn't argue that.

I think then that you know what Stallman is talking about when he uses the term "freedom" but you are taking the hard way in accusing him of dishonesty when you seem to really mean that he is using the wrong words.

It doesn't illustrate any point, because it is about tangible objects, to which you have ownership rights.

Software is non-tangible and as a licensee you have no ownership rights, and only those rights granted by the licensor (author/owner). This point was not represented at all in your analogy.

You made an argument about a car and manual which you own, which does not correspond to the software situation where you are the licensee, as I described above.

You don't place the restriction on the owner of the car. They place it upon themselves. But it doesn't apply to software because the licensee who receives a COPY is not the new owner.

Less free than what? This is where the car analogy breaks down again. As the new owner of the car they may feel less free because as owner they have obligations that you did not have as owner, but it is not about a car. Your analogy is hindering you because it is fault.

With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee. They may use the software without owning it! A new freedom! Just as they may use the car but they are not the owner of the software and have no inherent rights to it distribute it. But yet they may distribute it! A new freedom! As long as they follow the license.

But they do not have to distribute it (and it is not theirs to distribute). They can continue to use it without worrying about any of the license terms! They only have to follow the terms as they excercise the permitted freedoms, not as a price of those freedoms but as definitions of those freedoms.

But to keep you your car analogy, if they buy the software (the ownership of the software, not a license) from the OWNER or the OWNER donates the software then they are not bound by the license (do you know what license means? It means "permission") because they don't need the license. They operate as owner, not licensee. And so when we stick properly to your misapplied car analogy we see that freedom has not been restricted at all because the license does not restrict the owner.

You misunderstood the difference between owning the software/car and licensing the software/car.

To stick to your analogy, you cannot sell a car that you only hired. You have the capability - yes, but not the freedom. But its not yours...

I don't know if he argued that it should be put in place or that it should be put in place if the FSF clauses were to remain in force. But I hardly think copyright laws will go away and it's not relevant to your misapplication of the analogy.

Your analogies are not helping you and I can't see how this one does any more than demonstrate your misuse of the terms capability and freedom. I don't think there is any doubt what RMS means by the term freedom, and I don't think there is any doubt that you confused license from the owner to distribute a copy, with ownership.

In fact I suggest you read all of chapter 1 http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fa...
and then you will be ready to talk about freedom.

I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.

It was in a fight back against loss of previous common freedom, that are not so common these days. Having been born into a greater captivity than Stallman you maybe never had those freedoms and do not feel the loss.

"When Stallman noticed the jamming tendency in the Xerox laser
printer, he thought of applying the old fix or "hack" to this printer.
In the course of looking up the Xerox laser-printer software, however,
Stallman made a troubling discovery. The printer didn't have any
software, at least nothing Stallman or a fellow programmer could read.
Until then, most companies had made it a form of courtesy to publish
source-code files--readable text files that documented the individual
software commands that told a machine what to do. Xerox, in this
instance, had provided software files only in compiled, or binary, form."

http://www.quora.com/What-is-t...

It's also notable that you had to use a car analogy to make a point, which suggests that the point you are trying to make cannot reasonably be made in the software scenario; if it could it would be a more effective argument.

Tip: Analogies are good for explanations but not good for arguments. Often the point in discussion has implications on whether or not the analogy applies. Your analogy may only make sense to people who already take your view.

But in this case your analogy is faulty.

I suggest that the first flaws are that the car and the manual are physical artefacts that can't be in the possession of the donor and recipient at the same time, this alone disqualifies the analogy.

More specifically because your analogy is incorrectly applied.

No-one compels you to give YOUR car with YOUR manual. But you might say to the recipient: I give you MY car and MY manual on the condition that when you pass the car on you must also pass the manual on. Nobody compels the recipient to pass the manual on, he willingly accepts it as a condition of receiving the car.

This analogy as applied means that if you choose to COPY or DISTRIBUTE someone else's copyrighted works, you may only do so lawfully, which means by license or by legal recognized exceptions (e.g. fair use). You may therefore accept the terms of the license, or refrain from copying, or be in breach of copyright.

The license clearly grants additional freedoms that copyright does not grant.

You don't mention what "such laws" you are talking about. Is Stallman arguing FOR any laws?

Are you complaining that LG Canada holding back what others have complained of being a buggy update?

Is this good or bad?

No, in the UK you vote for a candidate, not a party, and the candidate may be independent of parties.

A party candidate may choose to leave his party after the election and this does not trigger a by-election, he retains his seat.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+o...

"Office 365" refers to subscription plans that include access to Office applications plus other productivity services that are enabled over the Internet (cloud services), such as Lync web conferencing and Exchange Online hosted email for business, and additional online storage with OneDrive and Skype world ...

It doesn't seem to be the same as Office 2007 or Office 2010 or Office 2013.

There was a bit of a clue in the name, but we don't read articles and we don't even read the summary these days

I always wondered why Microsoft weren't terminally ashamed that they were the only company in the world that could

1. produce a very good web based email/calendar client
and
2. yet have it not work properly on any browser other than MSIE

surely that fact hurt them when bidding for contracts?

But I don't doubt that their ODF implementation will be equally poor.

>> It may surprise you to learn that most people in the U.S. today are not "offended" by simple nudity.

> Yet they still manage to be insufferable puritans. If they are not, they should fight against unconstitutional laws against public swearing, public nudity, FCC censorship, etc. But they don't.

I get it. Because MOST people don't fight YOUR cause, THEY are the insufferable ones. Gotcha.

There is a point that you have to accept that you are not in control of the situation; when there is nothing you can do,

The poor sister didn't want to believe that there was nothing she could do and so she accepted the lie that there was something she could do to make it better.

And so she spoke when she should have been silent.

Not with selinux, you can permit it to bind to the port without being root

Now it's going to take me 4 attempts to plug in my USB device instead of 3.

That may be how OTG was conceived but I never heard of anyone using it that way.

People (including me) use it for USB keyboard, mice, hard disks, flash drives on phones or tablets which also act as removable media to a PC.