Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Too much thin phones and thin batteries (Score 4, Insightful) 121

I think the quest for ever thinner phones and ever thinner batteries is to blame.
I want thicker phones with longer life.

I also think a battery-only recall would have been cheaper, so there is a lot to be said for removable batteries too.
I want user-replaceable batteries

I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I do know what I want.

Comment Re: The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 359

No way do you make that argument in your post. Not even in your dreams:

The meaning of freedom (+1)
Raenex 2 days ago
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".

Comment Re: The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 359

To be clear: in your post you didn't mention Sweden, or the pirate party, or escrow.

I didn't narrow your argument, you didn't even make that argument. Not even your car analogy mentioned that the manual would have to be given only after 5 years.

I suggest you repost you question based on the past I am replying to.

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 359

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.

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.

If it is a strawman, you provided it. it shouldn't be this hard to find out what you are arguing.

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

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

You certainly failed to make it clear what you were arguing, and your car analogy did not help.

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

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."

In my remark about copyright working to his detriment, I thought you were talking about his original proposals behind the GPL and FSF based on the Xerox printer incident.

But certainly in your extract here, he is not arguing for any particular laws or losses of freedom, only stating the conditions required to preserve freedom for all people. He even states that he supports these changes in general. I don't know how that could lead you to argue that he is dishonest and in fact wanting less freedom!

Comment Re:The meaning of freedom (Score 1) 359

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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,

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

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,

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.

the theoretical argument remains. My argument applies to the Free Software Definition irregardless of the status of copyright.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your fault -- core dumped