Hello, Ineiev! 2010/5/5 Ineiev <[email protected]>
> Hi, Oleg! > > Actually, not quite: we discuss the attitude of the campaign > to those who keep publicly available software proprietary (which > attitude results in certain "unclear phrases"). > Agreed. The question is - have our nice discussion some sense for compaign :) ? > Again (out of curiosity), because you can't imagine any reason > >> they might have or because you have some other proof? > > > > For example - I know them personally. > > Is this the logic you wanted from FSF? > > To be of any relevance, the statement has to imply either > * no people can spy if you know them personally (why?) > or > * you know about the developers something that excludes > that behaviour (however you don't tell directly about it) > > I know you implied something reasonable, but I failed > to get any hint on what it is. > First decision false. I could know professional spy of course. Second decision have sense - but with remarks - I can't know about ALL developers for sure. But yes if I know some of them close enough, I can claim it. > >> Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always > >>> think that EULA's are written by the companies... > >>> > >> Sure. and the end user have no say there. no free-will. > > > > Free-will is will to choose. > > And they are not free to choose whether to include the clauses. > they are not free to choose whether to switch the feature off. > they are not free to choose whether they may know what data > are sent to the owner and when. they can't choose. > > (I shan't mention the fact that freedom is something more than > freedom of choice from a set of options > somebody else offers to you.) > In that particular case I mean *freedom* as freedom to choose not from set of options. But freedom to choose for agreing with some kind of EULA or license or not. Ab ovo. > You have will to not agree with EULA and press > > 'No' 'Quit' in anytime. > > True. but this does not mean I want the feature. and if I don't, > if I find it desirable for me to remove the feature, > then I may speak of spying. > Sorry, can't catch you! Could you repeat it in Russian? The question was not whether it was good or bad. > and the point is there were no voluntary consent; > it is to confirm that the campaign may call it spying. > The same here. > There are some guarantees essentially stronger > than the punishment, though (in my humble opinion). > Yep, I've adduce one. Could you add some another? > Best regards, > Ineiev > Cheers, Oleg
