Hey,
lowkey:
Agalloch:
Where did I say that the "Free" in free software had anything todo with cost? I apologise if it's just a common misunderstanding you encounter, but I'm well versed in FSF ideology, I wouldn't have commented on it otherwise if I am honest. I was both aware of the Free beer mantra, and it's implications. Using the tools you like seems like a good idea to me, though that isn't exactly what I was asking; which would be can you "produce what you want". Consumer arguments tend to be Utilitarian, so I prefer to focus on whether or not the producer is moral.
It is a common misunderstanding I encounter and that's why I started there.
Fair enough. I have encountered the same, however I did not mean to imply I thought as such in my first post.
lowkey:
Agalloch:
For example, "Free Software" is not Free like Free Speech, it is Free like... American Healthcare. Not a great analogy, but far better than implying property rights are recognised. When you have free speech, a property owner is still welcome to prevent you from saying things in his property; and when you have Truly Free Software, the owner/producer should be Free to contract with you in whatever way you both agree. In reality, it is the idea of a limitation on the producer (Whether it simply be moral outrage, or the FSF's legal goals, however I apologise if I confuse the two at any point) in the name of forcing him to grant the consumer "freedoms" upon the producers intellectual work. In American healthcare, we are told there is freedom because you can purchase your doctor, but the entire system is regulated in the name of consumer freedom.
These analogies are horribly broken.
If I produce a software program (100% my work to keep the example simple) and I release it under the GPL, I can still negotiate with other purchasers for a seperate release of the same code under another license. Mostly commonly this happens when certain closed source applications care to use open source items (like the QT libraries, etc). It's become so common that some libraries are dual licensed. An open free license for those that plan to share their code and a pay-for license for those building propietary applications.
The only restriction on a developer who chooses the GPL is that he can't take it back for version that he has already released. If he is the sole copyright holder, he can certainly release newer versions under another license. It doesn't happen often but it has (ex. Tux Racer).
As I said, not a perfect analogy, however the point was clear. An entitlement is not a freedom.
I don't disagree that you have the basic moral right to contract your work however you like. However, the FSF claims any program that is not available under a "Free Software" license, is immoral. This is the point not addressed. They are still calling for forcing producers to provide certain "entitlements", definetly not freedoms or liberties.
The FSF don't call people who choose the GPL immoral; they are talking about people who don't choose it. Again, I agree that people are welcome to contract however they like.
lowkey:
Agalloch:
I didn't mention anything related to cost in terms of the fictional cancer curing software. I did say however - and this is true - that they would call such software a "social problem" and if they are morally consistent, would condemn it entirey. And to the comment after that.. I still understand what free means, never said otherwise.
1) Not a freedom, simply a contract term. You are free to simply not accept the contract, I don't disagree with the FSF here, however this is not a Moral issue and the violence of the state should not be encouraged against people who do not offer the contract term.
2) Not a freedom. Same as above.
3) Same again...
4) And again, a contract term which they wish to see enforced upon everyone.
No, these are not simply contract terms. They are a
statement of what freedoms need to be included in a software license for the resulting product to be considered free.
For
example, during the protests of apartheid in South Africa during the
1980s, a few software programs added a clause to their licenses stating
that they or their derivatives could not be used in South Africa.
Which was fine, until the apartheid government fell. The licenses
still restricted the software from use in South Africa even though the
"problem" was gone.
Yes, they are terms that have to be included in any contract for it to fulfill the Free Software Definition. They are not freedoms, they are entitlements, like forcing healthcare proffesionals to provide certain "freedoms" has no relation to actual freedoms.
I don't see your point about South Africa? Do you think that people who live in South Africa have a right to use other peoples software despite the contract terms? While I agree that in retrospect, the terms are no longer necessary, I don't believe that understanding this gives people a right to other people's works. However silly you think a contract is, you have no entitlement to breach the contract. The problem here has nothing todo with Freedom though, it was simply short sighted of the developers to not make sure the clause stipulated that it was only valid for the lifetime of Apartheid. I still don't see where the right to breach their software contract comes in? We do not have a fundemental right to anyone else's work; even if they are dead.
lowkey:
Agalloch:
I agree with the FSF that if you don't like the terms of a contract, you should not agree to it. I even agree that they should encourage boycotts for people who do feel that software which doesn't fulfill all categories is "wrong"; however, these are still not moral issues.
I do believe it can be a moral issue (in limited cases). However the moral threat is indirect.
The problem I see is that closed source proprietary software often restricts you from doing what is the correct thing to do. For example, at one point Microsoft's license included restrictions that you could not use their products to say bad things about Microsoft. Given that they dominate the market, this could have severely limited the open discussion of issues that consumers had the right to be informed of. And given that a free market cannot function without knowledgeable consumers this becomes a moral issue. Albeit a relatively small one.
Why is it a moral issue? What do you mean indirect?
You're welcome to not buy closed source proprietary software, open source proprietary software, or even closed source non-"free software". Did Microsoft force you to use their products while forcing you to obey the contract stating you could not use the software to say bad things about them? I don't think so, and I have no problem with that; infact I'd still buy that product, and simply use other software to say bad things about them. So what If they dominate the market? I have no right to tell other people they are wrong to buy Microsoft products instead of spending all their time discussing how bad Microsoft is. And it would not stop people who don't like Microsoft from using other products to discuss their dislike. I still see no moral issue. And Domination of the Market by Microsoft is caused by the low quality of Linux, the closed nature of Mac, and the fact that IBM was prevented from competing with Microsoft by.. guess who?.. the US Government! As always, it is the Government that is the issue here, and the Government that the FSF wants to give more powers to restrict contracts to.
The free market has no necessity for "knowledgeable" consumers. You're free to make decisions with absolutely no knowledge. Infact, complacency is a useful market tool for preventing perfect market comparisons and silly ideas like "perfect competition" which are completely unwanted in reality. Where is the moral issue?
I'd be interested in seeing this previous discussion, and the logical fallacy that led to the conclusion that contracts aren't valid unless you personally negotiate them. I'd be even more interested to understand why the discussion didn't start by proving IP as a fallacy. There is no such thing as IP; it is a form of Newspeak designed to group basic ethical constructs like copyright, with Government enforced concepts like Patents and concepts best left to the market, like Trademarks. These things have no obvious relationship, and infact I am completely anti-Patent because it requires government. it is best replaced with Contracts, Insurance and Trade Secrets.
Thanks,
James