On Wednesday 05 December 2007 19:01:18 Noah Slater wrote:
> "if code is speech" - it would probably have been called "speech" and
> not "code"
...
> I totally reject this premise and hence the whole argument falls apart for
> me.
No-one's forcing you to agree. I'm saying I find it fascinating - it's the
first new thinking in the area I've seen in aaages, despite a common
starting point. I've always taken the "free" as being "free as in free
speech, not as in free beer". You can treat it otherways too. ("Free as in
freedom, not as in beer")
That said, this document is fairly old:
* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
And that agrees with the premise of an /analogy/ of speech - "you should think
of free as in free speech, not as in free beer."(paragraph 2)
Also, that page is using that as a means of /explanation/ rather than
definition (perhaps). The definition there is based on defining a set of
rules and then applying Kant's law of universality. (cf "Kantian
ethics"/"golden rule" in the GNU manifesto)
You are of course welcome to disagree with that analogy as well. (After all,
it's used there as analogy, not as definition) Free speech & Free Thought
after all :-D
Once again, with the premise I'm not sure I agree or disagree with Vijay's
assertion.... (Either way it'll be a private thing for me :) )
That said, I fail to see how it's not like free speech however if you say
this:
> Software is an act of creativity (like art or poetry)
Poetry is speech.
> If we really run with Vijay's argument (which is totally absurd and
> hence this is going to get a bit abstract) then I could say "I love
> apples" and his argument would dictate that you could come along and
> take my words and say them again but forbid ANYONE ELSE from saying
> them. Is that really freedom?
Personally, I'd say no. I am not the world though.
But I'd also say that's not what he[1] said either. He said that he could
say "I love apples", and then if you have free speech anyone can copy him
saying that (which I believe is true in a public place). They could do so to
the extent of taking a recording of him and selling it. Not only that they
can take his speech and use it against him. (I can't see how a liking of
apples can be used against him)
[1] I get really confused with the gender of non-anglo saxon names. If I've
got the wrong gender, my deepest apologies in advance !
Oh I don't know. *thinks* What's an example. Suppose there's an oppressive
regime exporting apples. They want to sell them so do some advertising. They
take the free (as in speech) recording of Vijay saying "I like apples" and
put that right next to images of a regime he doesn't like. If the license was
CC-BY, that can happen quite easily, but matches Vijay's definition of free
speech. Likewise they could even take said recording and embed it into a DRM
system that only plays on AmigaOS 2.1 because they don't want it a very
freely available piece of propaganda. That would be the equivalent of closing
the code.
I think.
Bear in mind it's not my argument, I'm just thinking it through, so there's
likely to be holes. I *do* think its fascinating though :-)
Michael.
--
"views above might not be anyones"
:-)
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
