Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever > you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't > go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other > people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, including myself > think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one > or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that > that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep > changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you > don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should > convince anyone.
Then, please, describe for me what your standard is. What freedoms count? If you say "the ones listed in the DFSG, and only those", then the tax-return requirement would be legitimate in a free software license. I have a reasonable coherent notion of what constitutes a freedom. Of course there is nothing which prevents you from offering a different notion, but you haven't, as far as I can recall. You seem to take the tack that these are *all* restrictions on freedom; then you have to say which restrictions you think are acceptible and which you think aren't. I've sketched out my method of analyzing such a question, but you haven't. Would you care to do so please?
