The result of the BSD license was a disaster for free software one of the worst free software disasters ever.
Uh huh. X11 has only served as the de facto windowing system for Linux for, what, over 20 years? What a disaster. Also I see you have no response to OpenSSH and Apache.
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.
Words matter, and calling for restrictions under the guise of "freedom" is propaganda and dishonest.
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.
It's immaterial. We're talking about whether source code must be provided (or "made available") when providing a binary. That's imposing an extra restriction that could equally be applied to tangible objects, as in the car example.
With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee.
I'm discussing in particular the Free Software Definition, of which the GPL is a particular license designed to enforce it. The GPL only draws its power because of copyrights on software. In a theoretical world without copyrights on software, and hence no licenses, the Free Software Definition is still a valid position statement. It would just label all software without corresponding source code as "non-free".
But I hardly think copyright laws will go away and it's not relevant to your misapplication of the analogy.
Stallman made his proposal because copyright was being undermined practically, and under serious debate in the public sphere. Don't be so sure they won't go away. It's like saying you can't ever imagine slavery going away, or the Berlin Wall coming down, or the USSR dissolving, or gay marriage, or legalized pot, or legal abortions, or any number of things that at one time seemed impossible... until they were a reality.
Anyways, even if copyright on software is here to stay, the theoretical argument remains. My argument applies to the Free Software Definition irregardless of the status of copyright.
It has a long proven track record of failure where systems that were once free become in practice proprietary and unfree even though there is some free almost worthless version hanging out under the BSD license.
OpenSSH? Apache? X11? Those are all licensed under BSD-style licenses and not GPL, and they are still widely used today, moreso than any proprietary version.
You are just assuming what you are trying to prove with your rhetoric.
That's funny, because that's exactly what you just did with your "a)" and "b)".
I think you need reminding of the origin of the free software movement.
I'm well aware of the printer story. But it changes nothing, as you're conflating freedom with capability.
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.
I didn't "have to" use it, but I chose it because it illustrates the point while being familiar and tangible objects.
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.
You're grasping at straws without addressing the argument. I have no use for the manual. Maybe I lost it. Or maybe I'm just being a jerk and don't want to give it to him. Whatever the case, it's a bullshit argument to say I've taken away from somebody's freedom when I gave them a car. They didn't have a car before, now they do. They could have refused the car. They can still attempt to fix the car on their own. That's freedom. Would they have an easier time with the manual? Yes, but that's capability.
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.
Yes, but if you do that you place a restriction on the new owner of the car. They are less free. It may result in more capabilities and an overall better outcome, but it's not one based on freedom.
You don't mention what "such laws" you are talking about. Is Stallman arguing FOR any laws?
"Free Software" requires the binding of copyright to be enforced. Stallman has argued that if copyright laws were to go away, a law that requires giving source for software should be put in its place. That's a consumer protection law, not freedom. It shows exactly how the GPL is not based on freedom.
Which brings me to the second analogy I gave, that being the consumer protection law of requiring ingredients to be listed on packaged food. You could argue that it gives people the "freedom" to choose food appropriately, but that's capability, not freedom, and we know these are regulations that curtail the free market but most people are in favor of them anyways without crying "freedom!".
the freedom to restrict other's freedom
Conflating freedom with capability. While it would be nice and useful to give somebody the source code, I have not made them less free by not doing so.
Your loss of freedom to restrict others freedom whether by direct or indirect action increases not decreases freedom.
And this line of thinking leads us to Orwell's, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." It's propaganda.
The The Free Software Definition states as one of the "four essential freedoms": "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." (bold mine)
Let's say I gave somebody a car out of charity, but I didn't give them the owner's manual. Are they now less free because they will have a harder time fixing the car than before I gave them the car? If I was compelled to give the person the owner's manual with the car, or not give the car at all, am I not less free?
My point is this. The Free Software Definition conflates freedom with capability, and does so at the cost of what freedom really means. It's nice for propaganda purposes, but it's Orwellian in nature.
It could be argued honestly that in the name of consumer protection we limit freedoms for the greater good, such as requiring a list of ingredients in packaged food. However, it would be dishonest to argue for such laws in the name of "freedom".
Aside from a few token "we'll send you a text message and call it two-factor" options
That actually seems quite reasonable. Just about everybody's got a cell phone. Why send out a fob for every site that needs protection? Sounds like two-factor to me.
Slashdot is dying. Netcraft confirms it.
http://www.statista.com/statis...
http://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/f...
So your 99% figure was bullshit, based on your own links.
Also the dinosaurs they weren't preventing access in the sense we were talking about. If the municipality was being blocked from offering wifi then a local company had wired up the area. No one prevents access where they can't or won't provide service.
Read the fucking article. These were areas whose needs were not being met and the dinosaurs lobbied, threatened to sue, or sued their way to prevent municipalities from offering services that would meet their needs.
You aren't contradicting anything I'm saying.
You claimed, "Those dinosaurs are doing a very good job of providing tremendous bandwidth at low cost to 99% of America's 130m households."
I challenged your 99% figure. I also linked an article that shows "those dinosaurs" preventing access from being expanded to people who don't have it.
It's about big ISPs and government screwing up broadband access. You decided to pull the 99% figure out of your ass. You defended the big ISPs and government. Now when presented with some contradictory information, you want to dodge it.
Smart people are doing a very good job weighing the various interests in networking and putting together compromises that meet most of them. Those dinosaurs are doing a very good job of providing tremendous bandwidth at low cost to 99% of America's 130m households.
Did you pull that 99% figure out of your ass? Here are those "smart people" at work:
Marc Espie said the error exists in FreeBSD's PAM implementation.
Marc Espie's post, linked from the article: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-mi...
"Okay, let's admit that the *portable* version of openssh wasn't programmed in a way that's paranoid enough about the failure modes of pam."
Lots of hemming and hawing about how PAM sucks and is easy to screw up, and maybe it is, but the bug still exists in OpenSSH code and that's where it was patched:
It was six months before 9/11 and actually the World Trade Center:
The Sept. 11 Parallel "Nobody Noticed" ("Lone Gunmen" Pilot Episode Video)
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
Six months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- March 4, 2001, to be exact -- Gunmen premiered with an episode featuring a terrorist plot to fly a commercial airliner into the World Trade Center. The climactic sequence actually shows the plane heading into one of the Twin Towers, but at the last minute, it's pulled upward and just misses the building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Similar to theories posited about the events of 9/11, the episode's plot indicates that the hijacking was committed as an act of voracity by a greedy American arms manufacturer to ultimately increase its weapons sales by invoking U.S. retaliation against a scapegoated anti-American extremist dictator.
Then again, there are examples [youtube.com] (NSFW) that prove your point.
I agree, titties in the trailer are a pretty big spoiler.
COCKFIGHTER
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
