Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Reviewing the GNU system for FSDG compliance
Le 18/11/2014 à 22h35, Joshua Gay a écrit : > On 11/18/2014 04:17 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Any update on the status of the FSDG-compliance review for GNU Guix? >> >> Joshua told me some progress had been made, but I want to make sure it >> doesn’t get stuck or something. ;-) Let me know if any action is >> needed on our side to help with this. > > The GNU Guix distribution of GNU/Linux meets all of our criteria and > will be an endorsed distro so long as RMS decides the way the project is > described on the Guix homepage does not create confusion or lead users > to believe that it is the official GNU System. Weren’t actually GNU (Guix) supposed to become “the official GNU System” once ready? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Le 13/10/2014 à 09h34, Riley Baird a écrit : > On 26/09/14 05:17, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: >> Le 25/09/2014 à 00h06, Riley Baird a écrit : >>>> To take again your example: someone can probably (it’s an >>>> euphemism) increase your freedom in *so more many ways you can’t >>>> even wonder* alive than dead. Dead it’s just a pile of flesh, as >>>> you could obtain killing a simple animal, or even (bio)hacking with >>>> pluripotent inducted cells. Alive it’s quite surely an instance of >>>> the most fantastic and powerful autoimproving system produced by >>>> the universe. >>> >>> What about people that are not autoimproving or powerful? Is it >>> ethical to kill them? >> >> Well, when I was saying “powerful”, it’s in the same meaning of a >> “ language/concept/software is powerful”, so “with a lot of >> potential”, and I was speaking at the scale of the universe, so that >> even a monkey in something damn powerful in relation with an infinity >> of void with some rocks. > > Ah, okay, I misunderstood your definition. If someone is autoimproving > and powerful, they are likely to be able to increase my freedom. This is > not true in all cases, and if we are being realistic, some people could > take away my freedom, for example if they overthrew the government to > replace it with a dictatorship. Yeah, some people can exerce power. But that doesn’t stop that (a) it’s still human being who are potentially useful/source of freedom *on some other side* in parallel, (b) they exerce a power into the context of a hierarchy, so the problem is not them but the hierarchy. If you delete them, hierarchy stays, and someone else will take their place, and nothing would have change, except maybe some nasty details on you, because you killed someone, especially someone powerful, and that people could consider you could keep doing that. > But even if we consider that all humans are better alive than dead to me > (and hence there is no such thing as freedom to use their flesh in > cooking), then surely they would be better able to directly serve my > freedom if I put them into slavery? Again, I'm not advocating this, but > this is an example of how one person can have freedom at the expense of > another person's freedom. They would serve your power, not freedom, thus “you” as an element of a hierarchy, not as an unique and particular individual with a will, a personality, a mind, emotions, etc. That also mean that you are forced to follow historic rules that until now allowed hierarchy to stay up (rules of gender, sexuality, religion/moral/well-thought/wathever, “races”, “nation”, capital, property, classes, etc.), otherwise you could fall down in a very fatal way. It means that you are never completely master of your masterness. And even when you —you between some billions of others trying the best they can— try to go up, you’re just following the general, widespread and essential (for people not to revolt against hierarchy in itself) illusion of having a possibility to go up in hierarchy, while the higher and stronger the hierarchy, the unlikely someone is going to move from one place to another. While when others are free, it means everyone is making the others more free, so it can increase exponentially. Thus, everyone becoming more free as everyone else is working that way, people are going to get more free more rapidly, and thus to be useful to your freedom much quicker. Imagine two situations: a centralized and hierarchized distribution system… and a P2P one. In the former you could maybe, potentially, in 1 chances over a billion, control what happens, and get the comfortable illusion that’s the best situation for you, in the latter, people would be going to exchange not only with you but also between each other… Which one is the more likely to serve you the better? >>>>>>> Objectivity does not suppose an objective subject - in fact, it does >>>>>>> not suppose a subject at all. If there were no conscious beings, an >>>>>>> objective reality could still exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> *** That's debatable, but humans have been doing it since they have the >>>>>> capacity to do so, and still didn't reach any conclusion. >>>>> >>>>> Hopefully we'll take less than 2 years. :) Can you imagine a >>>>> universe with no conscious beings? If you believe in the Big Bang >>>>> Theory, then such a time must have existed. >>>> >>>> In the hypothesis objective reality wouldnât exist without Subject >>>> (idealism) the Big Bang Theory would be a conception of the Subject, it >>>> would still
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Le 25/09/2014 à 00h06, Riley Baird a écrit : >> To take again your example: someone can probably (it’s an euphemism) >> increase your freedom in *so more many ways you can’t even wonder* >> alive than dead. Dead it’s just a pile of flesh, as you could obtain >> killing a simple animal, or even (bio)hacking with pluripotent >> inducted cells. Alive it’s quite surely an instance of the most >> fantastic and powerful autoimproving system produced by the universe. > > What about people that are not autoimproving or powerful? Is it ethical > to kill them? Well, when I was saying “powerful”, it’s in the same meaning of “ language/concept/software is powerful”, so “with a lot of potential”, and I was speaking at the scale of the universe, so that even a monkey in something damn powerful in relation with an infinity of void with some rocks. Added to that, there’s only one kind of human which is not autoimproving: a corpse. Almost everything is socially constructed and acquired trough experience in human (and that’s why it’s so powerful: because all the power is in hot/live-adaptable software) so a human which is not able to acquire anything wouldn’t acquire the minimum to keep its brain working, and would die. I could mention the experiment, tried several times in story, always of a king or some important figure, to find the “natural language” of mankind (generally thinking to something like greek or latin), and asking to grow human babies in perfect conditions, with all heat, love, food, comfort, etc. they need, but *never* speaking with them, nor communicating using any form of language. Generally, the babies died without any explanation. The brain just stopped working. Therefore, since all the value of human freedom is in the fact it can live-adapt, and that without being able of that it dies, any human has already an intrinsic giant power. Then you could argue the minimum found in a human in potential is sometimes lower than what is found in some non-human animals, like monkeys or elephants… But first such humans are probably really rare, maybe even not existing: *lower* means that it would have *everything* lower, but human intellect (and even larger: animals intellect) is so much complex and has so much features even our greatest science abilities didn’t completely determined what it does and how it does it… It’s really unlikely we know enough about any human being to say it has less abilities: we thought that of autism/asperger, and it was damn wrong, we thought it of many “diseases” which finally wasn’t. Every human is different, we just have some who are so much that we aren’t able to understand them, or worst, to make them understand us and our society. How can we judge something we aren’t even able to include in our society? Since individuals are socially built, we can’t know if they can’t do something because they really can’t in any way or because we just ignore the way we should teach them. Btw we use not to kill such intellectually animals for these same reasons. Second even if it’s really dumb, so much I would be able to build a superior AI (“superior” meaning “completely able to simulate it /plus/ even more”), I wouldn’t kill even your dog, firstly because it would really badly affect all members of society emotionally attached to it (and even this not being rational, it’s sane, natural and indivisible From the way human work), comprised myself (because of this fantastic feature called empathy, making social enough animals feel the suffer they see, very useful to automatically, instantly and enormously increase the probability of survival of all individual in any group of animals (even of separate species)). And what is true for a dog is certainly a lot more for any human, whatever its intellectual abilities. >> Even if I don’t share the opinion of many on copyright legitimacy, I >> would notice go against it is not free speech: free speech is the >> authority-unregulated expression of *opinions*. Just transmitting >> others’ work is not an opinion, at least not your, thus it’s not free >> speech. Yet it’s still legal to express the same opinion of someone >> else who expressed it in a copyrighted work. > > I think that free speech is much more than the right to express your > opinions. Wouldn't you agree that Phil Zimmermann's exporting of the PGP > source code was free speech? If he expressed opinion it would be free speech, if it expressed scientific ideas (much closer) it would be free science (like when Galileo said Earth was rotating around Sun), now it’s not a scientific idea but an *implementation*. He didn’t published a paper on RSA, he implemented it, it’s different. Though why people initially tried to censor him was for the diffusion of the scientific idea more than implementation. But yet this isn’t free speech, it’s not like saying “government is doing this and you don’t know!”, it’s more like saying “hey, look how everything in astronomy look simpler if you take Sun as c
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
On 2014-09-23 at 01:53, Riley Baird wrote: >> Murder is not a freedom, it's a crime. Freedom >> amplifies possibilities, and does not restrict them. > > If freedom is that which amplifies possibilities, but does not restrict > them, then why doesn't murder fit this description? > > If I am able to murder someone to use their flesh in cooking, then that > increases greatly the number of different dishes which I can make. It > does not restrict my freedom, since I am not forced to cook using their > flesh, it is just an option available to me. Because you have to contextualize it in a social context: when he says “amplifies/restrict” freedom, he’s not only speaking about your, but anyone’s, the whole society’s, of each individual in it. Then if you still want to see from an individualist point of view, you have to consider that when we say “freedom is being able to do whatever you want without restricting other’s freedom” it’s not an arbitrary principle, but it’s because the freedom of others *increase* your individual freedom. If most of animal species (everything after mammals for instance), and notably cultural animal (monkeys and /homo/ genus), live in society, it’s simply because society, collaboration and solidarity is an objective advantage in struggle for staying alive (struggle against circumstances most than others, contrarily to a common misconception of Darwinist evolution). To take again your example: someone can probably (it’s an euphemism) increase your freedom in *so more many ways you can’t even wonder* alive than dead. Dead it’s just a pile of flesh, as you could obtain killing a simple animal, or even (bio)hacking with pluripotent inducted cells. Alive it’s quite surely an instance of the most fantastic and powerful autoimproving system produced by the universe. > Yes, but you haven't established why helping the authors make money in > an artificial marketplace is more important than protecting my free speech. Even if I don’t share the opinion of many on copyright legitimacy, I would notice go against it is not free speech: free speech is the authority-unregulated expression of *opinions*. Just transmitting others’ work is not an opinion, at least not your, thus it’s not free speech. Yet it’s still legal to express the same opinion of someone else who expressed it in a copyrighted work. >>> Objectivity does not suppose an objective subject - in fact, it does >>> not suppose a subject at all. If there were no conscious beings, an >>> objective reality could still exist. >> >> *** That's debatable, but humans have been doing it since they have the >> capacity to do so, and still didn't reach any conclusion. > > Hopefully we'll take less than 2 years. :) Can you imagine a > universe with no conscious beings? If you believe in the Big Bang > Theory, then such a time must have existed. In the hypothesis objective reality wouldn’t exist without Subject (idealism) the Big Bang Theory would be a conception of the Subject, it would still be, but would just be dependent of it. Yet you can’t prove what you see is real, because to prove anything you need material, and you can’t have material if you assume it is not real. Thus the fact objective reality exist can’t be a proven truth but only a postulate, an useful (even better: essential) assumption. >> And no, if I'm producing a guide on choosing a free software license, >> I don't want to hear about what proprietary software vendors have to >> say about it. > > Understandable. And, if you're right, really, you shouldn't have to. > However, note that this is a moral issue, and all morality, to some > degree, involves an arbitrary choice of what to value. No it’s not up to moral but to ethic. Moral —coming from latin /mores/: habits— is the value of “Good” relative to a specific culture. While ethic —coming from greek “ethike”: a science of what is good— is the value of “Good” in absolute, not relative to any culture but objectively developed after the study of human. > Hedonistic utilitarians value happiness, communists value equality, > libertarians value individual freedom and Orthodox Jews value > following Mosaic Law. Isn’t all that linked to freedom at the end? Anarchism taking freedom as its finality arrive to communist (the philosophy, not the soviet state-capitalism system nor the authoritarian conception of revolution) conclusions with utilitarian rationality and a “libertarian” value (well actually it’s libertarians who illegitimately reclaimed anarchists rhetoric and values turning completely upside down its thoughts, like saying capitalism is opposed to hierarchy/authority and makes people free). Freedom being essentially defined after will, it matches happiness. Equality (to distinguish from “similar” or “identical”) being defined as being not superior nor inferior negates hierarchy, thus authority thus matches Freedom. Every value of Good, at the end, matches Freedom. So at the end everyone thinking rationally is goin
