* Levi Pearson [Mon, 21 Jan 2008 at 13:15 -0700] <quote> > Lonnie Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No offense taken, but I think you are missing the "religious" > > reasoning in the Free Software movement. The Free Software movement > > reasons that every user of software has a right to each of the 4 > > freedoms outlined below. > > > > * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > > * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your > > needs (freedom 1). > > * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor > > (freedom 2). > > * The freedom to improve the program, and release your > > improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits > > (freedom 3). > > > > Any user that chooses software that strips them on one of these > > freedoms is unfortunate. Software makers that deny these freedoms are > > not "evil", but are unkind people by harming their customers deserved > > freedoms. > > Yes, I'm well aware of these freedoms that the Free Software > Foundation espouses. I agree that those things are nice. I don't > agree that people have any intrinsic right to those things. I believe > that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > Aside from those, you've got whatever rights that aren't restricted by > government or community. Since those freedoms interfere with the > right to control how your personal creations are used, they fall > clearly in the 'negotiable rights' category, not the 'intrinsic > rights' one. I certainly don't feel they ought to be universal.
Woah woah, hold on, stop and evaluate. Since when is the "right to control how your personal creations are used" a God given or intrinsic right?? I dare say it's not! Your _property_ is one thing, but as soon as you give something to somebody else, for whatever reason, it ceases to be your property. Can I get another AMEN! > Any assertion that those rights *are* universal must be religious, > since they clearly aren't fundamental to human nature and only God > could choose to grant them universally. :P As well to copyright. > > Now, if you don't believe the 4 freedoms are beneficial to our > > society, then I would understand your feelings. But I get the > > distinct impression that you feel these freedoms are beneficial. What > > is wrong with educating people about the unkind, freedom restricting > > acts of non-free software developers? > > That would be mis-education based on a faulty understanding (or > correct understanding and deliberate misuse) of heavily-loaded terms > like 'freedom' and 'right'. Copying or modifying someone's software > against their will is just as unkind, and telling them that they can't > exercise their copyright is just as freedom-restricting. Telling > people that everyone ought to have these four freedoms doesn't make it > so. Calling people who release their software under different terms > 'unkind' is just being childish and anti-social. Yeah, calling the FSF principles "rights" might be in poor taste, but copyright itself is absolutely in poor taste itself. I'm not totally against copyright, I think it has in cases some merit. But to call it a "right" just rocks my boat. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
