Dr. Stallman said: > > > You have misunderstood freedom 0. Freedom 0 means the program > > > does not impose limits on how you are allowed to use it. > > > Whether it does what you want in any given situation is > > > another question. > > > You might want to change the language of freedom 0 to match what > > you're saying above. > > I don't see a reason for a change. They already match as far as I > can see.
I'll try to be more clear. To convey what you said above, this text: "The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from doing so." would have to change to: "The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden from doing so." The act of stopping someone from using software violates free-sw.html even in the absense of a prohibition (because of the phrase "or stopped"). Now you're saying to stop someone using a tool how they want does not violate freedom 0. > > scenario 2) GCC is inherently capable of Lisp compilation > > because all the working machinery for that is > > already there for whatever reason. But there is a > > line of code saying "if lisp_code_found then > > abort". > > Freedom 0 has nothing to do with this. The freedoms that are > pertinent here are freedom 1, the freedom to delete that line, and > freedom 3, the freedom to redistribute that modified version. That would depend on whether freedom 0 contains the "or stopped" phrase. Indeed freedom 1 lifts the burdon of caring about freedom 0 in the GCC scenario above, but that entails having freedom 1. > > In the case of GNU Radio Foundation, Inc., freedom 1 is useless for > > changing the code that executes on the server of CloudFlare, > > Inc. which discriminately blocks some users from reaching the > > documentation. > > Even if that program is free software, that is CloudFlare's copy, > not yours or mine. We have no right to change the code in > CloudFlare's server, just as CloudFlare has no right to change the > copies of free software that we run on our servers. Indeed, hence the problem. Note however that we are not rendered helpless by this problem. We have a derivative right to protect GNU users from CloudFlare's malicious code, a right that derives from our right to decide whether to participate in the marketplace. And when choosing to do so, we have a right to select service providers. Why have we chosen a service provider contrary to our values? Why do we allow this service provider to divide and attack some GNU users? > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html > may help clarify this. That article actually affirms our duty to condemn CloudFlare. It states: "There is one case where a service is directly comparable to a program: when using the service is equivalent to having a copy of a hypothetical program and running it yourself. In this case, we call it ... Service as a Software Substitute..., and such a service is always a bad thing." Jean Louis posted this link earlier: http://www.fromdev.com/2011/06/create-cdn-content-delivery-network.html -- Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.
