On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, J.B. Nicholson <j...@forestfield.org> wrote:
> Charles Cossé wrote: > >> Not necessarily. If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still >> publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect. >> > > Giving someone a copy of a program's source code doesn't grant them > permission to create derivative works, distribute said source code, or > distribute modified copies of the program (to name a few of the freedoms of > free software). If you are going to quote me then please quote the relevant context, which was: On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:48 PM, J.B. Nicholson <j...@forestfield.org> wrote: A proprietary program's license is designed to offer no permission for its > users to learn how that program works. Thus proprietary software forbids > that education. I was not referring to legalities, but responding to your claim that I was somehow forbidding them to learn how the program works. If you have the complete source in-hand then you have the ability to learn how it works. Your statement remains factually incorrect. > Your use of the word "should" is, again, overstepping. It is not for you >> to tell anyone what they "should" find outrageous. Regarding your point, >> I >> believe that it is unlikely that any educator would concur with your >> assertion that they are "telling a student that their education ought not >> include" such understanding. If the goal of the educator is to get the >> job >> done and teach the kids math then they are probably not concerned with >> such >> fine-grained philosophical subtleties. >> > > Sounds like an educator that isn't doing their job very well. You are > clearly trying to dismiss software freedom as a necessary factor in > computer use when real-world examples keep pointing out the need for > software freedom. Are there any educators reading this who would like to defend against the above criticism? Please explain what gives you the authority to level a blanket criticism against any and all educators who fail to ensure their students' right to re-release the source code of an application teaching them, say, how to spell 3 letter words, to use another asymptotic case. If something is a moral / ethical imperative then it stands for all cases, kindergartners included. I think I am clear that I am suggesting not to make such controversial claims because 1) you can't prove it, 2) not everyone agrees, and 3) some people will find it downright offensive, thereby making it more difficult to convince those you seek to enlist. > Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't". My >> intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are. Keyword: "my". >> "My >> intentions", as in "freedom of intent". You actually believe that the >> user's "rights" exceed mine as the author? >> > > There's your problem: you're looking at software freedom as excessive or > being somehow superior to the copyright holder's power instead of treating > the program's users as equals in that they should all be free to develop > the program in any way they wish. If I write a 2 line program that prints "hello world" and don't license it under a FLOSS license, the user is still free to use it or not use it. According to FSF(E) doctrine, however, I am "unjust" and "immoral". Read the links you sent some posts back. FSF(E) makes no exclusion for asymptotic or trivial cases. As for you telling me what "my problem" is, I think you know how I feel about that by now. They certainly are a blanket solution and alternative to actual compelling >> reasons. Invoking God, or ethics in this case, is hardly convincing >> these >> days. What does the rest of the FSF community have to say on this? It's >> okay to challenge sacred beliefs, it happens all the time. >> > > I see no invocation of any gods in anything I've written on this thread > and I'm unaware of any such invocation in the FSF's distributed materials. > > Well, at least you quoted the full context this time. And if you read it, you can see that I did not say that you invoked God. I did, however, compare your un-proveable ethics-based arguments to such. > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > -- Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning <http://www.asymptopia.org> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, J.B. Nicholson <j...@forestfield.org> wrote: > Charles Cossé wrote: > >> Not necessarily. If I license it with a proprietary license, yet still >> publish the complete source, then your statement it factually incorrect. >> > > Giving someone a copy of a program's source code doesn't grant them > permission to create derivative works, distribute said source code, or > distribute modified copies of the program (to name a few of the freedoms of > free software). > > Your use of the word "should" is, again, overstepping. It is not for you >> to tell anyone what they "should" find outrageous. Regarding your point, >> I >> believe that it is unlikely that any educator would concur with your >> assertion that they are "telling a student that their education ought not >> include" such understanding. If the goal of the educator is to get the >> job >> done and teach the kids math then they are probably not concerned with >> such >> fine-grained philosophical subtleties. >> > > Sounds like an educator that isn't doing their job very well. You are > clearly trying to dismiss software freedom as a necessary factor in > computer use when real-world examples keep pointing out the need for > software freedom. > > Once again, I take issue with your use of the word "shouldn't". My >> intentions can be whatever I decide my intentions are. Keyword: "my". >> "My >> intentions", as in "freedom of intent". You actually believe that the >> user's "rights" exceed mine as the author? >> > > There's your problem: you're looking at software freedom as excessive or > being somehow superior to the copyright holder's power instead of treating > the program's users as equals in that they should all be free to develop > the program in any way they wish. > > They certainly are a blanket solution and alternative to actual compelling >> reasons. Invoking God, or ethics in this case, is hardly convincing >> these >> days. What does the rest of the FSF community have to say on this? It's >> okay to challenge sacred beliefs, it happens all the time. >> > > I see no invocation of any gods in anything I've written on this thread > and I'm unaware of any such invocation in the FSF's distributed materials. > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > -- Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning <http://www.asymptopia.org>
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
