Svetlana Tkachenko posted here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-02/msg00042.html
and said: > > It's not the GNU Radio program that violates the freedom 0 > > principle, it's the GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. An organization, > > not a program. > > The software freedom principles apply to software only, not to > organisations. Your use of the word "apply" here is equivocal (a logical fallacy). It's a way to force the language used in the discussion toward blatent imprecision. And precision is important here. The verb "apply" is ditransitive in this case. Principles (of any kind) are only endorsed or condemned by people and organizations. An object or data (software) cannot reason, and therefore cannot develop principles or form opinions about them. Only people (and groups thereof) can apply principles, or violate principles. When we say: <a software package> violates the freedom 0 principle, it is a shortcut for saying: /the people/ who created that software violated the freedom 0 principle through that creation. We now must discard this language shortcut because you're using it as an instrument to suppress the transparency of an attack on the freedom 0 principle. The GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. violates the freedom 0 principle. They conduct this violation not directly through their own software creation. Their attack on the freedom 0 principle is carried out against users of other GNU tools. Although your argument is junked automatically due to equivocation, we can still look at the idea you're trying to rally support for. That is, the idea that the freedom 0 principle is limited, and only a worthy when it affects the freedoms obtained through the use of an author's creation exclusively, and not when a creator takes actions to limit the utility of other peoples' work. This is of course a lousy idea. Why would someone how embraces freedom 0 want to have their freedom reduced? If you embrace freedom 0, it's because you don't want someone controlling how you use your tools. If party A proactively forces artificial limitations on you that reduces the utility of another tool you use (made by party B), why would someone who embraces freedom 0 find this acceptable? Microsoft's business strategy frequently leads them to break *other* tools. It's for that reason that some people have embraced the free software movement, a community that favors /cooperation/. Without first understanding point 2, which was snipped from the post you are replying: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-02/msg00040.html you have little hope of understanding the other flaw of your claim. This flaw entails neglecting the fact that people are their own judge of the value and extent a principle can be used. The same flaw that we continue to see reincarnated as a consequence of you not understanding point 2. -- Please note this was sent anonymously, so my address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.
