It isn't hard, you just refused to accept it and insisted on your narrow argument based on the GPL and existing copyright, despite the fact that I repeatedly told you otherwise.

He says, further in the article:

"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. [..] So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the public domain after 5 years." (bold mine)

I had a 486/66MHz running Debian in the 90s. X11 wasn't a "disaster". I did end up abandoning Debian for a few years around the time of Windows 98, not because of X11, but because Linux in general wasn't worth the pain. I ended up going back to Debian, not because X11 was no longer a "disaster", but because I was again willing to endure the pain of Linux.

You state that without anything to back it up. I'm using the standard X11 that comes with Debian just fine, and so are many other distributions. It gets the job done. It certainly isn't "some free almost worthless version hanging out under the BSD license".

Are those "the norm"? You haven't given any evidence they are. I gave an example of a giant company talking about how to tune Tomcat, not some proprietary offshoot. Is the mere existence of a proprietary add-on now considered a failure?

You insisted that BSD-style software ends up "almost worthless", but you have been proven wrong, and now you're just blathering on, blindfolding yourself to the successful BSD-style software that's thriving, far beyond "almost worthless".

You started out saying, "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". Yet it served Linux fine for over 20 years, while most of the commercial Unix's died out. Your point is invalid.

You seem to think because a proprietary fork exists that counts as a failure. Yet Apache itself is still thriving. And hey, look, here's a blog post from 3 days ago where a huge commercial company, Netflix, describes how to tune Tomcat to take care of a problem: http://techblog.netflix.com/20...

You are intent on arguing a strawman, probably because your argument falls apart otherwise. Again, I'm discussing the Free Software Definition irrespective of copyright law, whereas you are talking about the GPL in a state of copyright law.

I explicitly linked to the Free Software Definition in my first post. The discussion of the car analogy is in that context.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...

An excerpt:

"The bullying of the copyright industry in Sweden inspired the launch of the first political party whose platform is to reduce copyright restrictions: the Pirate Party. Its platform includes the prohibition of Digital Restrictions Management, legalization of noncommercial sharing of published works, and shortening of copyright for commercial use to a five-year period. Five years after publication, any published work would go into the public domain.

I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special case of free software. I'm sure that they did not intend to hurt free software, but that's what would happen.

The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license. Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license. And all redistributors must give users access to the software's source code."

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.

Words matter, and calling for restrictions under the guise of "freedom" is propaganda and dishonest.

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.

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".

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.

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.

That's funny, because that's exactly what you just did with your "a)" and "b)".

I'm well aware of the printer story. But it changes nothing, as you're conflating freedom with capability.

I didn't "have to" use it, but I chose it because it illustrates the point while being familiar and tangible objects.

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.

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.

"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!".

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.

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".

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.

So your 99% figure was bullshit, based on your own links.

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 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.