I was doing my daily reading of slashdot, and I decided to see what I had in my journal. It seems that in my angst, my brain was taking a lunch break. It seems I reinvented flamebait/trolling when I made my last journal entry. Silly me.

test2

A user named extrasolar made this comment:

This is what my dictionary says "free" means. The following definitions are what the "free" in free software mean:

3. Not controlled by an outside power; autonomous. 4. Not bound by restrictions or regulations: free trade. 9. Not controlled, restricted, or hampered by outside agents or influences. 12. Available to all; open: a free port.

These are some notable definitions that Stallman does not mean by free software:

1. Having personal liberty. 2. Having civil, political, or religious liberty. 15. Given or provided for without charge or cost: free seats.

So the phrase "free software" does mean what he intends it to mean, "unrestricted". Anyone who believes he means definition 1 or 2 in my dictionary, is a fool. If this is propaganda, its rather poor, don't you think?

Also, free software doesn't necessarily mean free of *all* restrictions, which seems to be your only complaint, just as free trade doesn't mean trade without *any* restriction. In both cases, it simply means you are generally not restricted in what you may do. By all accounts, the GPL is an unrestrictive license even if it doesn't allow you to relicense the work. Without the GPL, you wouldn't be able to copy the program, obtain source code, or distribute your own modifications.

My response to it is something I want to remember. I'm posting it here mainly so I can go back and think about this some more later. If you want to discuss it, Constant Reader, be my guest.

So the phrase "free software" does mean what he intends it to mean, "unrestricted".

It can't, though. Because "free software" (i.e., GPL-licensed software) is not unrestricted. Quite the opposite.

Let's run through your definition candidates one by one.

3. Not controlled by an outside power; autonomous.

This is a terrible definition, but it clearly means "free as in having liberty of self-determination." The phrase "not controlled by an outside power" may confuse you until you get to the part where it says, "autonomous." The fridge in our office kitchen is not controlled by an outside power-- clearly, because nobody ever cleans the damn thing-- but it's not autonomous. So it's not appropriate, under this definition, to refer to it as a "free fridge." Same with software. If the source code to software is released and the copyright abandoned, then it's not controlled by an outside power. But it's not autonomous. So the phrase "free software" makes no sense by that definition. That one's out.

4. Not bound by restrictions or regulations: free trade.

I've already covered this one in part by saying that "free software" (i.e., GPL'd software) is just as restricted by licensing terms as any other software, and moreso than some. But there's another problem with this definition, too. In the phrase, "free trade," "trade" is a process, not an object. Same with "free speech." It's a process that is unrestricted by outside forces. It's understood, from that use of the word "free," that the object isn't actually "free" in any meaningful sense, but rather that the participants in the process are. When you say, "free trade exists between Canada and the United States," what you really mean is, "Canada and the United States are free of restrictions in trade."

But "software" isn't a process in Stallman's definition. It's an entity. So "free software," the phrase, has more in common with "free couch" than it does with "free trade."

If you stretch your mind a bit and think of "software" as the act of exchanging source code between individuals, then maybe there's a parallelism to "free trade" here. But we're back to the part about "not bound by restrictions." GPL-licensed software is just as bound by restrictions as any commercial software. So that definition of "free software" is clearly bogus.

9. Not controlled, restricted, or hampered by outside agents or influences.

I've done this one already. "Free software," i.e. GPL'd software, is restricted in its use. Those restrictions include a prohibition of releasing that software under a different software license, and a prohibition of linking that software into a larger software product without releasing the entire larger product under the GPL. They're serious, restrictive prohibitions. The word "free" can't apply there without the definition's being bent so far it's in danger of breaking.

12. Available to all; open: a free port.

Okay, this one is the closest yet to a definition I can accept. "Free software" is free in the sense that a "free port" is free: anybody can use it without paying a fee. I might be able to go along with that.

But this proves my very thesis: out of 15 definitions of "free," some of which weren't listed, only one could possibly be applied in the phrase "free software" without being blatantly incorrect. And the definition that applies is relatively obscure and differs in significant ways from the most common definition. And, furthermore, the definition that applies has more in common with the "zero cost" definition of "free" than with any other definition, which is exactly what Stallman says it doesn't mean.

The use of the phrase "free software" is counterintuitive and misleading. It's a rhetorical technique, called "transfer," to associate oneself with something that the audience accepts as inherently good. If you can get your audience to make that connection in their minds, they're far less likely to consider your argument critically.

By all accounts, the GPL is an unrestrictive license even if it doesn't allow you to relicense the work. Without the GPL, you wouldn't be able to copy the program, obtain source code, or distribute your own modifications.

Um... no. Without the GPL, the software would have no license at all, and would be in the public domain. I would be able to copy it, use its source code, change it, distribute it, do whatever I wanted with it. The GPL artificially restricts my freedom to use the software in the exact same way that any other software license does. The fact that it grants some rights-- which are all fine and dandy, by the way-- doesn't mean that it doesn't restrict others in a significant way.

This entry serves mainly to remind me that I've decided to start a journal. I made this decision based primarily on encouragement from Osty, and a few others.

If you're a friend of mine (in the SlashCode sense I can't promise that this journal will ever go anywhere. I don't know, yet, whether I'll enjoy writing in it enough to take the time. But we'll see what happens.

Oh, one last thing: I want to keep a note of this comment. I wrote some decent things in here, and I'd like to remember to go back and flesh them out sometime soon.

they seem to have lowered the threshold for a ban - or some anallingering mod is modbombing me.

just seeing if I can even post a journal - if not, then I got the whole subnet banned again. My neighbor who is a slashbot won't be happy.

who's your daddy?

more typical gay crap today. Wow, I can pay even more for a computer with 1 extra inch of screen and the same slow ass processor. Sign me up! And I can pay an extra 120 dollars for the newest patch to the OS!

wow - what a bunch of pussies. If a library blocks a molester from looking at kiddie porn, it is somehow censorship (please ignore that free speech does not mean the public has to pay for you to look at porn; Gnu/free as in buttsex open sores users don't believe that) But no problems putting a leash on people who say unpopular things here, are there?

Funny how the slashbots are suddenly unanimous in support of private property and the right of one group to shut another up based on what they say when it is 'their' site. Of course the sellout fags here are just bitches to the janitors; suck suck suck - more ads please.

I am totally convinced that this new system was put in place to keep me from getting to 1000 posts. What other explaination is there?

I just realized that I have over 860 posts. That is sick. If it takes say 1 minute to find a gay slashbot post to crapflood, or wait for an fp, then fire off a post, that means I have wasted over 14 hours just on this. I feel very dirty inside. Nevertheless, I have set a goal of reaching 1000 posts by the end of July. Then, in the tradition started by the WIPO Troll, I will kill myself. Or just find a new username.

Have you ever wanted to do something just to get a reaction out of someone? I just did. Ive been posting off and on over the course of a couple of months and it seemed like no body was reading what I had to say. No body even posting and saying that 'what i had to say was crap' or anything like that. So, I decided to post something random that was likely to excite some attention. Something I realised when this happened... i can post 9 comments and not have them moderated in any way, and have 0 karma, and when i post one random one, it goes down to -1. Seems odd that i could be on the bottom so fast. 9 things that people decided was average and 1 below average and now im some kind of slashdot criminal... seems disparaging.
.................................................
note: the below quote was one of those little motd quotes at the bottom of slashdot... note its gramatical mistakes... i thought someone was getting paid to put those down there.. just cant let typos like that slide...

Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for even the greatest fool may ask more the the wisest man can answer. -- C.C. Colton

This is to know how you say! Fine times for loved ones, pleasure for me! Enjoy stir fry, meataball, all things! Goodbye to you sire!

Everybody loves Google. Their search technology is great, and they generally seem to follow their credo of "Don't Be Evil." So they have tons of good karma built up, which leads me to ask the following question out of curiosity and without meaning to imply anything bad about Google.

Google now sells the Google Search Appliance, a 1U machine that sits on a corporate intranet and allows intranet users to search company documents with Google-esque speed and accuracy. And as we all know, Google itself runs on Linux, as does its appliance.

My question is, now that Google is selling a machine that runs Linux, don't they have to also distribute any GPL code on the device -- such as the Linux kernel, and any modifications they've made to it? I asked Google about this via their "request information" form, but have not yet received a reply. I guess since I expressed no interest in purchasing an appliance they skipped over my message. All google is required to do is provide the source code to the people who receive the binaries (if, in fact, they have modified and distributed any GPL code), which they may be doing, but since I don't know anyone who has one of these, I can't determine whether or not the source is provided with the device. There is no mention of the GPL or Linux in the appliance's license terms, though the following clause IS there:

Any and all third party binary or source code included in the Product may be used only in conjunction with the Appliance, and such use shall be subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. THE PRODUCT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED, TRANSFERRED, OR MODIFIED EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT.

Not exactly consistent with the GPL, is it? But like I said, Google has lots of good karma built up, so they get the benefit of the doubt. But... where's the source?

Well, One of Aimster/Madster's parent corporations has filed Chapter 11. I still have not received my BuddyUSA W-2s. And they offered me 37% or what they owe me, so I sent them back an offer for 66% of what they owe me, and they ignored it. Note that Pi 2, the corporation that signed my paychecks for 2 months, has not filed for bankruptcy.

You kennedy loving pinko losers suck. Keep your pedophiles in your own damn state.

article