dick wrote:
Can nonfree refrain from failing to respect user's freedoms?
You present this as an unattributed quote. If this is intended to
represent my previous response, it is a dishonest paraphrase. As a
direct question, it is a tautology: nonfree software is "nonfree"
*because*
> There is nothing insidious with such a paint
And yet, free software rhetoric emphatically characterizes nonfree as
"causing
harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed," which is
Merriam-Webster's
definition of "insidious."
No, it doesn't. You do not qualify what is
There is nothing insidious with such a paint -- its just paint.
When talking about software ethics one talks about what chains are put
on the users from those who control the software, in the case of a
paint manufacturer it might be by using Paint Restriction Managment
that would prohibit
> Can nonfree refrain from failing to respect user's freedoms?
I sell magic paint with the insidious feature that if you try mixing it with
another color, it turns black. But otherwise the paint performs great.
Under most interpretations of consumer commonlaw, so long as I make it clear
before
