On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Noah, you're taking my use of the word speech to literally; replace all > instances of the word "speech" with "expression"
Expression is fine, people should have freedom of expression. > I apply the same principles to my code. Take an example other that TIVO, say > $Company uses my code to do something I don't like perhaps they sell > something I find morally objectionable (from arms dealers to rap music; > choose your bogeyman) and my code is used within their product, should I be > able to stop them? Yes, because this is "action" not "expression". If TIVO started using the software to smuggle arms or deal drugs then you are guaranteed that the government will stop them. > To be blunt, I disagree that what TIVO did took any > freedom away from anyone, they just did something I didn't like, no one is > free to to not be offended. Well, to be blunt, you are wrong. All of the customers who bought a TIVO did not have the same amount of freedom as people who would have installed the software on a normal PC. Your whole argument is based around conflating the freedom to express one's self and the freedom to take action - which are fundamentally different to one another. I may call you an "idiot" repeatedly and no law will stop me. I can start to punch you in the face repeatedly and I'll get locked up. BTW, I don't think you're an idiot, by any measure - just a colourful example. ;) -- Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
