- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Supporting Free Software by means of Civil Disobedience?
|
|
|
Comments (59)
just another way of saying "producers are worthless"
30 earlier comments in the full thread.
Caitlyn, did I say anything against profit? Of course that without profit there is no innovation. You somehow think that it is impossible for an innovator to profit if he doesn't get a monopoly on implementations of his idea or all copies of his intellectual work. That is a common myth and the FOSS itself partly dispels it.
Copyright and patents are nothing but forcing the hands of the market actors to keep the prices higher than they should be. The result isn't more innovation, but more concentration of wealth and corporatism (which go hand in hand).
But you're advocating exactly the opposite by claiming you have the right to decide instead of me how I should behave (democracy). But you're dangerously close to delving into the political realm (albeit by your own and TCs inconsistent and contradictory definitions espoused in a recently deleted discussion).
Copyright and patents are nothing but forcing the hands of the market actors to keep the prices higher than they should be. The result isn't more innovation, but more concentration of wealth and corporatism (which go hand in hand).
Quoting:The key to finding the proper balance is to extend the greatest possible individual freedom without granting the ability for one person's freedom to deny another person or group of people of that same freedom.
But you're advocating exactly the opposite by claiming you have the right to decide instead of me how I should behave (democracy). But you're dangerously close to delving into the political realm (albeit by your own and TCs inconsistent and contradictory definitions espoused in a recently deleted discussion).
Bigg: Shooting someone is a property violation itself (self-ownership). If you violate somebody elses property you're giving up your own equivalent, which is exactly what makes self defense acceptable.
> If you violate somebody elses property you're giving up your own equivalent, which is exactly what makes self defense acceptable.
I don't understand that statement at all. You give up your own equivalent to whom?
I don't understand that statement at all. You give up your own equivalent to whom?
To the one you violate. I attempt to kill you, you may be right in killing me in self defense. By intentionally endangering your life I have forfeited the right to mine, to you or those whom you immediately or prior authorized to defend you.
That could go offtopic though.
That could go offtopic though.
Quoting:You somehow think that it is impossible for an innovator to profit if he doesn't get a monopoly on implementations of his idea or all copies of his intellectual work.
That is partially correct. The innovator should get full control, what you call a monopoly and what I call freedom, to decide how his work should be distributed. Where this statement does not reflect my views is the idea that he or she (please watch the sexist language) is entitled to control of all implementations of an idea. This is where the concept of software patents as they exist in the U.S. is flawed.
Let's say everyone involved in this thread enters a programming competition. We are given a problem. For the sake of argument let's assume everyone here is a competent programmer and that a solution is within the capabilities of everyone here. There are no restrictions of how the solution is to be achieved nor are there any guidelines regarding style or structure of the resulting code.
Hans and I can write a solution that is based on the same concept or idea yet have code that doesn't have a single line in common. Our respective solutions could be written in entirely different languages. However our basic ideas, our concepts of how the solution should be reached, can be all but identical. Neither Hans nor I nor anyone else should have "monopoly control" over the concept. However, each of us should own our respective code, hold copyright to that code, and should each be able to determine how that code is to be distributed.
Quoting:Copyright and patents are nothing but forcing the hands of the market actors to keep the prices higher than they should be.
I completely disagree with this statement and everything that logically follows from it. Copyrights and patents protect those who create innovative works. They have absolutely nothing to do with price. I can write code and then choose to distribute it for free and still retain copyright. That is precisely how FOSS works today.
Quoting:The result isn't more innovation, but more concentration of wealth and corporatism (which go hand in hand).
Copyrights and patents protect either indivduals or corporations. They do not favor corporations over individuals. A corporation is nothing more than a legal framework to determine how a business is organized and taxed. There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations.
The desire to attain wealth is a basic part of human nature. Those who are, in fact, creative and innovative deserve to be compensated for their work product fairly. Yes, that can mean greater compensation for someone who produces something that is truly revolutionary or even for someone who is simply a very productive person. I do not believe in the Communist concept that distribution of wealth has to be equal.
Quoting:But you're advocating exactly the opposite by claiming you have the right to decide instead of me how I should behave (democracy).
That is completely consistent with what I am advocating. Please remember that I said that freedom is not absolute. Society can restrict freedom in a reasonable way to protect the freedoms of others. All freedom is relative in nature. This is not in any way contradictory with granting the greatest possible individual freedom within reasonable restrictions.
Let me give an example. You have freedom of speech but it is limited. There are certain types of speech that are not protected and are, in fact, restricted. Libel, slander, and defamation of character are not protected in the U.S. You have no right to incite violence or a riot. You famously do not have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire because the results are likely to cause harm. Some European countries go further by restricting hate speech. One can argue that restriction already exists to a certain extent in the U.S. since incitement isn't protected speech. Hate speech laws go further.
The key, as always, is to find a balance. How much freedom can be granted to you without taking freedom away from me? That is always open to debate and that is why we have the political system and discourse we have. It is also why we need laws and an independent judiciary.
So yes, society (not me personally) is, in fact, dictating your behavior to a limited extent. That is a GOOD thing.
Quoting:But you're dangerously close to delving into the political realm (albeit by your own and TCs inconsistent and contradictory definitions espoused in a recently deleted discussion).
Our definitions were completely consistent. Using those definitions your article is political in nature and should never have been published on LXer.com in the first place. The article itself reads as a TOS violation to me. By definition any on topic discussion of your article would therefore also be political in nature.
Theboomboomcars wrote,
> Without these protections, there won't be as many advances
While this is indeed the reasoning behind patent and copyright laws, I don't see it as settled one way or the other. Mostly because it's my opinion that the logic is wrong, and it's lots of other people's opinion that it's right.
As a counter example, I offer science. Openly published, ideas and discoveries spread as quickly as possible, and deliberately utilized and built upon by other scientists to produce new theories, ideas and discoveries. "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."
Using the example of basic science, it is my opinion that without the government monopoly grants of copyright and patent there would be far GREATER development of ideas, in breadth, depth, quantity and quality.
Using the example of how people use the materials that are in the public domain, it is my opinion that the horrible abuses alluded to by those who support the monopoly grants would not be either as wide spread or as terrible as is implied.
Would we really be better off without "Variations on a Theme by Paganini", "Shakespeare In Love" or several dozen different versions of "Hamlet"?
Hasn't the RIAA taught us that the abuses of the system are legion? I don't see any way to decry the abuses, but still support the system itself.
> Without these protections, there won't be as many advances
While this is indeed the reasoning behind patent and copyright laws, I don't see it as settled one way or the other. Mostly because it's my opinion that the logic is wrong, and it's lots of other people's opinion that it's right.
As a counter example, I offer science. Openly published, ideas and discoveries spread as quickly as possible, and deliberately utilized and built upon by other scientists to produce new theories, ideas and discoveries. "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."
Using the example of basic science, it is my opinion that without the government monopoly grants of copyright and patent there would be far GREATER development of ideas, in breadth, depth, quantity and quality.
Using the example of how people use the materials that are in the public domain, it is my opinion that the horrible abuses alluded to by those who support the monopoly grants would not be either as wide spread or as terrible as is implied.
Would we really be better off without "Variations on a Theme by Paganini", "Shakespeare In Love" or several dozen different versions of "Hamlet"?
Hasn't the RIAA taught us that the abuses of the system are legion? I don't see any way to decry the abuses, but still support the system itself.
Caitlyn,
You responded to the question, >> Do you believe software cannot be owned?
with > Yes, absolutely.
Thus the confusion. It's clear to me that you simply got the negative in the wrong place, and that you do "absolutely" believe that software CAN be owned.
> I do believe that copyrights can and should exist to protect the creators of various works. I also do believe that patents should exist.
I understand your position. If only it were consistant.
> Software patents are a special case since an idea can be arrived at in any number of ways. I do have a problem with software patents.
But the same thing could be said of everything that patent covers, which is why I see your disagreement with "software" patents to be inconsistent with your support of patents in general.
My personal opinion is that you yourself are effected by software patents, and you are therefore able to discern the destructive nature of the patent system. But rather than see the patent system as what is destructive, you've chosen to limit your discernment to the specific case in order to not challenge your preconception of "patent is good".
You responded to the question, >> Do you believe software cannot be owned?
with > Yes, absolutely.
Thus the confusion. It's clear to me that you simply got the negative in the wrong place, and that you do "absolutely" believe that software CAN be owned.
> I do believe that copyrights can and should exist to protect the creators of various works. I also do believe that patents should exist.
I understand your position. If only it were consistant.
> Software patents are a special case since an idea can be arrived at in any number of ways. I do have a problem with software patents.
But the same thing could be said of everything that patent covers, which is why I see your disagreement with "software" patents to be inconsistent with your support of patents in general.
My personal opinion is that you yourself are effected by software patents, and you are therefore able to discern the destructive nature of the patent system. But rather than see the patent system as what is destructive, you've chosen to limit your discernment to the specific case in order to not challenge your preconception of "patent is good".
Quoting:I don't see any way to decry the abuses, but still support the system itself.
To misuse a cliche: this line says that the bathwater is dirty so there is no way to save the baby.
The system is flawed, yes, but not irrepairably so. It can be reformed without throwing it out.
> The system is flawed, yes, but not irrepairably so. It can be reformed without throwing it out.
How?
By extending copyright/patent to the extreme, the problems with the system have been demonstrated beyond the ability to ignore them.
If patent/copyright were still as limited in scope as they were at first, those abuses would still exist, it would simply be difficult to argue against it because the negatives would be so limited in scope.
Yes, you misuse that cliche. What I am trying to do is throw out the dirty bathwater, so that the baby CAN get clean, Rather than keep the dirty bathwater and fool myself into thinking that just because it's "bathwater" therefore the baby must be getting clean.
It is the nature of the system itself, the granting of legal monopoly, that is the abuse.
How?
By extending copyright/patent to the extreme, the problems with the system have been demonstrated beyond the ability to ignore them.
If patent/copyright were still as limited in scope as they were at first, those abuses would still exist, it would simply be difficult to argue against it because the negatives would be so limited in scope.
Yes, you misuse that cliche. What I am trying to do is throw out the dirty bathwater, so that the baby CAN get clean, Rather than keep the dirty bathwater and fool myself into thinking that just because it's "bathwater" therefore the baby must be getting clean.
It is the nature of the system itself, the granting of legal monopoly, that is the abuse.
Quoting:Thus the confusion. It's clear to me that you simply got the negative in the wrong place, and that you do "absolutely" believe that software CAN be owned.
That is correct.
Quoting:But the same thing could be said of everything that patent covers, which is why I see your disagreement with "software" patents to be inconsistent with your support of patents in general.
Not so, and my position is completely consistent. As originally conceived a patent protected the inventor of a physical device, not an abstract concept. If I build the proverbial better mousetrap I own the design. I can license it to a company and they can build mousetraps but they have to pay me a fee or royalty based on my ownership of the patent. Patent law places a limit on how long I or my heirs can maintain that ownership of design.
Software patents are different because they claim ownership of abstractions and ideas which can be reached with any variety of designs. I think I explained that adequately in my last post with the hypothetical software competition.
Quoting:My personal opinion is that you yourself are effected by software patents, and you are therefore able to discern the destructive nature of the patent system.
Not so. Software patents are conceptually different from patents on physical designs. I do not see the patent system as inherently destructive. I do not discern that to be true at all.
Quoting: But rather than see the patent system as what is destructive, you've chosen to limit your discernment to the specific case in order to not challenge your preconception of "patent is good".
Now you are trying to dismiss my ideas as "preconceptions" and willfull blindness. Such dismissals make intelligent debate impossible.
Quoting:It is the nature of the system itself, the granting of legal monopoly, that is the abuse.
This assumption, this premise, in my view is completely flawed. It sums up our differences in a nutshell.
I'd say we've reached a logical impasse.
> I'd say we've reached a logical impasse.
Not logical, actually, just an impasse. I do not believe you're being logical, you don't believe I'm being logical, QED.
> Such dismissals make intelligent debate impossible.
Which is exactly how I see your position. I've often asserted your ideas as "preconceptions" and willfull blindness, please don't act surprised.
Not logical, actually, just an impasse. I do not believe you're being logical, you don't believe I'm being logical, QED.
> Such dismissals make intelligent debate impossible.
Which is exactly how I see your position. I've often asserted your ideas as "preconceptions" and willfull blindness, please don't act surprised.
Caitlyn, so you effectively support controlling second hand transactions involving intellectual arrangements of one type over another. There isn't that much of difference between what copyright and patents apply to. They're both information, ideas.. just differently arranged and presented.
I agree copyright doesn't *always* result in price inflation (FOSS example), but given the exclusivity it offers "copyright holders" it has provided enough incentive for proprietary software to become dominant and for companies like Microsoft to keep the price of an operating system as high as they are, inflating the price of computers commonly sold to most users.
Without copyright, there would've been no threat for the Free Software movement to develop against.
And if you really believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the institution of a corporation I really recommend you watch "The Corporation".
You still insist that a "society" is more than a concept, an entity that has a will of its own and can validly impose limitations on people's freedom.
As for calling the entire article political... by some definitions it may be, but if that is against TOS then LXer staff is breaking it quite consistently. There have been many articles speaking about similar subjects, copyright, software patents etc. But frankly I am really sick of this pattern of yours, beginning a political offtopic discussion and then blaming me for TOS violations according to your own personal convenient interpretations.
I'm considering leaving these forums for good. Each time it is becoming more and more clear that intellectual dishonesty is a common trait in this community and that staff doesn't really care much for making their stand clear.
I agree copyright doesn't *always* result in price inflation (FOSS example), but given the exclusivity it offers "copyright holders" it has provided enough incentive for proprietary software to become dominant and for companies like Microsoft to keep the price of an operating system as high as they are, inflating the price of computers commonly sold to most users.
Without copyright, there would've been no threat for the Free Software movement to develop against.
And if you really believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the institution of a corporation I really recommend you watch "The Corporation".
You still insist that a "society" is more than a concept, an entity that has a will of its own and can validly impose limitations on people's freedom.
As for calling the entire article political... by some definitions it may be, but if that is against TOS then LXer staff is breaking it quite consistently. There have been many articles speaking about similar subjects, copyright, software patents etc. But frankly I am really sick of this pattern of yours, beginning a political offtopic discussion and then blaming me for TOS violations according to your own personal convenient interpretations.
I'm considering leaving these forums for good. Each time it is becoming more and more clear that intellectual dishonesty is a common trait in this community and that staff doesn't really care much for making their stand clear.
Quoting:I'm considering leaving these forums for good. Each time it is becoming more and more clear that intellectual dishonesty is a common trait in this community and that staff doesn't really care much for making their stand clear.
A perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Your whole article and the discussion that ensued was ideological and political in nature. Therefore any response by me or by anyone else discussion the content was political and therefore a TOS violation. You were trolling from the start.
Oh, and I do understand your point: If someone agrees with you it isn't a TOS violation. If they challenge the concepts you present it is. Talk about personally convenient! Anyone who disagrees with you or points out that the discussion is political in nature and that the TOS calls for no political discussion is "intellectually dishonest"? Really? Perhaps you should look in the mirror when making that accusation.
Oh, and if you and Bob R. left I suspect there would be little political discussion left and very few if any TOS violations. Why is that? How would I be to blame?
You're essentially parroting myself. You might have as well said "right back atcha".
You usually start with "TOS violations" accusations yourself, not me, so you cannot claim that I use that weapon against those whom disagree with me.
You usually start with "TOS violations" accusations yourself, not me, so you cannot claim that I use that weapon against those whom disagree with me.
(I am going to suggest staff to define political discussions on LXer clearly enough as to not leave room for further speculation, subjective interpretations and conflict and distrust that arises from that.). Please PM me if you agree this is a good idea.
Thanks
Thanks
Caitlyn,
> Oh, and if you and Bob R. left I suspect there would be little political discussion left and very few if any TOS violations. Why is that?
Because you don't consider the things you agree with to be TOS violations. Since Libervis and I diametrically oppose your position on several subjects, you consider our postings to be TOS violations.
> How would I be to blame?
You're not to blame. It's human nature to find no offense in that with which we agree.
Recognizing that disagreement does not equal personal endangerment is part of being civilized. "Sticks and stones" and all that.
Having this discussion here, in this thread connected to this story, the "political" aspects are NOT TOS violations in my opinion. It's not like anyone has said "Democrats Good Republicans Bad" or any other distraction.
Since copyright/patent are a political subject, since the existence of such laws makes it political, having a "political" discussion on the subject is not merely accepted it would be IMPOSSIBLE to talk about copyright/patent without it being in some way political.
So, fair Lady, I guess we're stuck. So long as articles on copyright/patent or the laws or governmental effects on F/OSS are posted, "political" posts will be made.
...unless all governmental action in the realm of F/OSS is eliminated, which I don't expect any of us thinks is likely.
> Oh, and if you and Bob R. left I suspect there would be little political discussion left and very few if any TOS violations. Why is that?
Because you don't consider the things you agree with to be TOS violations. Since Libervis and I diametrically oppose your position on several subjects, you consider our postings to be TOS violations.
> How would I be to blame?
You're not to blame. It's human nature to find no offense in that with which we agree.
Recognizing that disagreement does not equal personal endangerment is part of being civilized. "Sticks and stones" and all that.
Having this discussion here, in this thread connected to this story, the "political" aspects are NOT TOS violations in my opinion. It's not like anyone has said "Democrats Good Republicans Bad" or any other distraction.
Since copyright/patent are a political subject, since the existence of such laws makes it political, having a "political" discussion on the subject is not merely accepted it would be IMPOSSIBLE to talk about copyright/patent without it being in some way political.
So, fair Lady, I guess we're stuck. So long as articles on copyright/patent or the laws or governmental effects on F/OSS are posted, "political" posts will be made.
...unless all governmental action in the realm of F/OSS is eliminated, which I don't expect any of us thinks is likely.
> ..unless all governmental action in the realm of F/OSS is eliminated, which I don't expect any of us thinks is likely.
Except perhaps in New Hampshire, sometime this century. ;)
Except perhaps in New Hampshire, sometime this century. ;)
Quoting:As a counter example, I offer science. Openly published, ideas and discoveries spread as quickly as possible, and deliberately utilized and built upon by other scientists to produce new theories, ideas and discoveries. "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."
I fully agree that building on someone else's idea is a good thing, and is allowed under copyright law, the whole derivative works thing. One weak point of point to science as a way of showing how innovation can succeed without the hindrances of copyright/patents is that significant amounts of scientific research is paid for by government grants, thus the enticement to do the research.
That is also why free software is so great, it allows you to build on others ideas, and others to build on yours. That is the same reasoning why many prefer the GPL to BSD. The GPL forces this sharing, where as with BSD you can take my idea, build upon it then not allow others to build on yours.
context is everything
"Freedom" means different things to different people. To libervisco "freedom" means "no government". I think the article makes much more sense when you keep that in mind.
Just to avoid any confusion, I strongly disagree with pretty much everything libervisco has written since he converted to anarchism, and I no longer cooperate with him in any way. I know and understand his point of view, but do not share it.
One sentence summary of the article: If there can be no freedom as long as there is a law, it is illogical and impossible to use the law to create freedom.
I think there's one bit of confusion in the article that hasn't been pointed out yet: what libervisco advocates is "free usage" (some call this "piracy"), NOT "free software". In "free software", it is the _software_ that is free (for some definition of freedom), that is, no (enforcible) restrictions can be added to the software. In "free usage" on the other hand it is the _user_ that is free (for some definition of freedom), meaning the _user_ can do anything to the software, including adding restrictions.
I think everyone here would agree that it is technically impossible to "own" (have ultimate control over) software (or any other type of information) - uncrackable DRM is impossible. It seems libervisco denies the possibility of ethical or moral ownership of information. This is not one bit surprising, since that specific morality follows from the idea that society should look after those who work for the common benefit, and libervisco does not believe an individual can or should have obligations to society.
Libervisco, please feel free to correct me if anything I wrote in this post about your beliefs is incorrect.
One sentence summary of the article: If there can be no freedom as long as there is a law, it is illogical and impossible to use the law to create freedom.
I think there's one bit of confusion in the article that hasn't been pointed out yet: what libervisco advocates is "free usage" (some call this "piracy"), NOT "free software". In "free software", it is the _software_ that is free (for some definition of freedom), that is, no (enforcible) restrictions can be added to the software. In "free usage" on the other hand it is the _user_ that is free (for some definition of freedom), meaning the _user_ can do anything to the software, including adding restrictions.
I think everyone here would agree that it is technically impossible to "own" (have ultimate control over) software (or any other type of information) - uncrackable DRM is impossible. It seems libervisco denies the possibility of ethical or moral ownership of information. This is not one bit surprising, since that specific morality follows from the idea that society should look after those who work for the common benefit, and libervisco does not believe an individual can or should have obligations to society.
Libervisco, please feel free to correct me if anything I wrote in this post about your beliefs is incorrect.
Thanks for the distinction between 'software' freedom and 'user' freedom, that one is really helpful I think.
Danijel and I discussed this before, and what I learned from it was 'some freedoms take away others'. Or, you cannot have all freedoms at the same time; not all freedoms can co-exist. I think that's true when it comes to the software / user freedom.
Danijel and I discussed this before, and what I learned from it was 'some freedoms take away others'. Or, you cannot have all freedoms at the same time; not all freedoms can co-exist. I think that's true when it comes to the software / user freedom.
> Or, you cannot have all freedoms at the same time; not all freedoms can co-exist.
That's why freedoms must be prioritized. A higher priority freedom displaces a lesser priority one when they come into conflict. It's not like this is a new concept, it's been known for thousands of years.
That's why freedoms must be prioritized. A higher priority freedom displaces a lesser priority one when they come into conflict. It's not like this is a new concept, it's been known for thousands of years.
> It's not like this is a new concept, it's been known for thousands of years.
There is also the concept that what we call "rights" are negative in their application, not positive.
That is, I have a "right" to my own labor, but not yours.
By being essentially negative, they don't conflict. "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is an excellent example.
I'm all for Libre software, because it is the choice of the author to place their work into the hands of others. I prefer to use Libre software over proprietary, not because of price. Because the authors _want_ me as a customer, where the proprietary software authors do not (because I don't have the money).
As to the idea that there can be no freedom while laws exist, that's putting the idea way out in extreme terms. As an extreme, it's easy to take exception to it by presenting yet more extremes. (cue Caitlyn)
I agree completely that "freedom" cannot be legislated, which may very well be a better way to say it.
There is also the concept that what we call "rights" are negative in their application, not positive.
That is, I have a "right" to my own labor, but not yours.
By being essentially negative, they don't conflict. "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is an excellent example.
I'm all for Libre software, because it is the choice of the author to place their work into the hands of others. I prefer to use Libre software over proprietary, not because of price. Because the authors _want_ me as a customer, where the proprietary software authors do not (because I don't have the money).
As to the idea that there can be no freedom while laws exist, that's putting the idea way out in extreme terms. As an extreme, it's easy to take exception to it by presenting yet more extremes. (cue Caitlyn)
I agree completely that "freedom" cannot be legislated, which may very well be a better way to say it.
Actually freedom can and should be legistated. Your freedom or mine to take unpopular positions and to be protected from violence or discrimination on the basis of taking those positions is a perfect example. In the U.S. 51% of the population cannot vote the other 49% onto boxcars. We both live in the South. It wasn't long ago that a majority here would have voted for racial segregation. The courts ruled that under the law we don't have the right to discriminate based on race and that segregation constituted discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is legislation that guaranteed freedom, one of many such examples in the United States. There are similar examples in other free countries.
tbuitenh: You said I should correct you if you wrote anything wrong about my beliefs. Well you started with it...
It doesn't mean "no government". It means "no coercion". Simple as that. As for freedom meaning different things to different people, that can be said in theory, but in practice if somebody attacts you or steals from you, you defend yourself. Then freedom appears quite clear.
It seems people bring the definition of freedom in question only when its obvious violations are distant or when they are benefiting from or are too heavily invested into violations of somebody elses freedom (reputation, receiving welfare, being a government officer, owning shares in a company that profits from government contracts etc.).
Another wrong. I am not against law. I am against one company (group of people) forcing their services and with it terms of service on others. Currently this company is what you call "government" and these terms of service is what you call "law". Obviously, I believe you should be able to choose from which company you buy your services and thus which companies terms of service you will abide by. That's what some call "private law".
As for your distinction, if I understand correctly you're merely differing "Free Software" as in software under FOSS licenses with respect to *legal* rights they provide from freedom of the user that is independent of what the legal system says, right?
In which case it's a fair distinction, but as you can imagine I give little credence to these "legal rights" beyond seeing them as merely "things I can do without being threatened violence".
And "society"... nobody I encountered, read etc. has EVER been able to demonstrate that "society" is anything more than a concept, that it is something that in itself actually has the capability to grant or deny rights. This seems to me like a mass delusion.. but there you have it. In my view what lies beneath this fallacy of a "society" giving or taking anything or one being obliged to a "society" is simply some groups of individuals deciding the behavior of other groups arbitrarily (albeit often through a complex seductive process, like democracy).
Quoting:"Freedom" means different things to different people. To libervisco "freedom" means "no government". I think the article makes much more sense when you keep that in mind.
It doesn't mean "no government". It means "no coercion". Simple as that. As for freedom meaning different things to different people, that can be said in theory, but in practice if somebody attacts you or steals from you, you defend yourself. Then freedom appears quite clear.
It seems people bring the definition of freedom in question only when its obvious violations are distant or when they are benefiting from or are too heavily invested into violations of somebody elses freedom (reputation, receiving welfare, being a government officer, owning shares in a company that profits from government contracts etc.).
Quoting:One sentence summary of the article: If there can be no freedom as long as there is a law, it is illogical and impossible to use the law to create freedom.
Another wrong. I am not against law. I am against one company (group of people) forcing their services and with it terms of service on others. Currently this company is what you call "government" and these terms of service is what you call "law". Obviously, I believe you should be able to choose from which company you buy your services and thus which companies terms of service you will abide by. That's what some call "private law".
As for your distinction, if I understand correctly you're merely differing "Free Software" as in software under FOSS licenses with respect to *legal* rights they provide from freedom of the user that is independent of what the legal system says, right?
In which case it's a fair distinction, but as you can imagine I give little credence to these "legal rights" beyond seeing them as merely "things I can do without being threatened violence".
And "society"... nobody I encountered, read etc. has EVER been able to demonstrate that "society" is anything more than a concept, that it is something that in itself actually has the capability to grant or deny rights. This seems to me like a mass delusion.. but there you have it. In my view what lies beneath this fallacy of a "society" giving or taking anything or one being obliged to a "society" is simply some groups of individuals deciding the behavior of other groups arbitrarily (albeit often through a complex seductive process, like democracy).
Two questions
Two questions come to mind:
-Have you asked the FSF for their comments? -What was their answer?
Posting this on your blog or anywhere is nice, but doesn't lead to anything except political debate. It's not going to change GPL nor copyright law.
-Have you asked the FSF for their comments? -What was their answer?
Posting this on your blog or anywhere is nice, but doesn't lead to anything except political debate. It's not going to change GPL nor copyright law.
Starting a conversation about it is the whole point. Whether it is political or not I frankly don't care in general. I am apolitical and my views are naturally apolitical. On LXer we could've focused on making it solely about the contradiction between using copyright and viewing software as something that can't be owned. But it again burst into a more general "political" discussion (which I think started when caitlyn went all over the political map with her post).
Interviewing someone from FSF about the issue isn't out of the question, however.
Interviewing someone from FSF about the issue isn't out of the question, however.
> I am apolitical and my views are naturally apolitical.
Sadly, while I know exactly what you mean by this, it is beyond the scope of many people to understand it.
Sadly, while I know exactly what you mean by this, it is beyond the scope of many people to understand it.
Comments on this story are closed.
Like the right to prevent someone from using a gun to shoot someone else? That doesn't really strike me as problematic.