<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>Greetings, at some point I will become guilty of engaging in <a href="https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/edu-eu/2015-02/index.html">redundant conversation</a>. Initially in this thread I merely sought to agree that Uber were undermining not only other taxi drivers, but their own taxi drivers, as I believe that they would ultimately like to have completely driverless vehicles. And just a quick idea (O.T. digression) for anyone living in the San Francisco area (I know this is FSFE!) -- you could take out full-coverage insurance on your car and "stalking" those autonomous Uber vehicles with intent to cause them to collide with you (when unoccupied, of course) and thereby enjoy a little extra spending money. Just an idea ... but now back to the point(s).<br><br></div>I just refreshed my memory with many of the links you provided, J.B., as well as reading your blog, and my previous conversation with FSFE folks referenced above. It turns out that I don't suffer from any misunderstandings after all. Rather it's just a solid disagreement with Part "B" of FSF(E) doctrine, in which FSF advocates for the continued maintenance and availability of pure GNU/Linux systems (Part "A"), but then oversteps by applying an un-proveable philosophical value judgement which essentially says that "anything else is unjust" (Part "B").<br><br></div>Statements like "<span class="gmail-im"><span>Free Software supports education, proprietary software forbids" <a href="https://www.gnu.org/education/">[1]</a> strike me as outrageous and counter-productive. I understand that what is meant there is merely computer science education and not education in general, but even that goes too far. If I want to put a new version of <a href="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/TuxMathScrabble">my FSF-registed</a> education software online without GPL-ing it, that certainly isn't "forbidding" any </span></span><span class="gmail-im"><span>education that it was ever intended for, i.e. kids to *use* the software to learn math. <br><br></span></span></div><span class="gmail-im"><span>GNU/Linux and FLOSS are both great and the world is a better place because of them. I will always be an advocate. But I cannot accept the second, supposedly altruistic, tenet of FSF(E) doctrine, which asserts that anything else is unjust / unethical /immoral. Those are un-proveable philosophical value statements that have nothing to do with software. They only serve to alienate people from FSF(E)'s cause. Not to mention that they unnecessarily complicate ones ability to understand the whole concept. It's essentially a religious statement that has no logical connection to a transparent operating system and associated software. Why cling to that so fervently for so long? It's the same as saying that we should stop eating organically grown food because there's a Window's system involved in the food chain. <br><br></span></span></div><span class="gmail-im"><span>What if life on earth was in danger and couldn't be saved because of FSF-induced gridlock, i.e. because in order to save life on earth we would have to do something "unethical / immoral", namely use non-free software ... at what point does it become acceptable? Why bother with the ethical arguments at all? Just advocate for the transparency and more people will join the cause.<br></span></span><div><div><div><span class="gmail-im"><span><br></span></span></div><div><span class="gmail-im"><span>Regards to all,<br></span></span></div><div><span class="gmail-im"><span>Charles <br></span></span></div><div><span class="gmail-im"><span> <br></span></span><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 4:00 PM, J.B. Nicholson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jbn@forestfield.org" target="_blank">jbn@forestfield.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">Charles Cossé wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I get the feeling that the FSF communities hold an underlying belief<br>
that the freedom being espoused is somehow fundamental, as in a<br>
universal truth or moral oblication.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Software freedom is an ethical issue for the free software movement. This is one of the defining characteristics of this social movement and one of the things that distinguishes it from the younger, proprietor-friendly, right-wing business reactionary group called "open source" which talks about a developmental methodology in an attempt to speak more to business interests by way of developers.<span class="gmail-"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
But regardless of how hard-line of a stance each individual takes, isn't<br>
there some irony there? After all, "freedom" should also mean "freedom<br>
to license ones software however one pleases"?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
You need to catch up on what discussions have been going on for the past few decades. This issue is well-covered in <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy<wbr>/freedom-or-power.html</a>. In short, no, licensing is not a freedom it's a power.<br>
<br>
You could also listen to any of the FSF representative's speeches given over the past 20+ years many of which are archived at <a href="https://audio-video.gnu.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://audio-video.gnu.org/</a> in formats that favor free software.<span class="gmail-"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Another point which I'd like to discuss is: Where does FSF draw the line?<br>
Are there not some instances where not revealing everything is alright?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
There are distinctions to be made between generally-useful scientific knowledge, artistic & political expression, and information about personal lives. Many speeches at the location I've already pointed to cover this. In the context of this thread about cars, an ethical arrangement would be one where the car owner has complete corresponding source code to their car and that software is free software. This arrangement, had it existed for the owners of VWs and other makes, probably would have prevented the scandal where VW (and others) cheated environmental testing. So we know what power proprietary software allows automakers to get away with -- "proprietary software in cars is at least equally, if not more, dangerous" as Brad Kuhn said in <a href="http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/08/13/does-not-kill.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016<wbr>/08/13/does-not-kill.html</a>.<span class="gmail-"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
We put our faith in closed systems every day, and software is just one<br>
type. It oseems like this same notion of freedom would/should apply<br>
everywhere, if it is real or universal, and not just to software.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
You should reconsider your use of the word "closed" instead preferring "proprietary" or "non-free" because they're clearer and refer to software issues that existed well prior to open source. These terms also make no reference to open source, and that's appropriate because you're discussing the very thing that open source wants to avoid (software freedom) and distinguishing along a line that open source doesn't want to distinguish -- whether computer users are free to run, share, inspect, and modify the software on their computers or not.<br>
<br>
Open source doesn't mind proprietary software because for them this issue comes down to a developmental methodology which means they might ask for permission to develop the software too, but if they don't get that permission they're fine endorsing whatever a proprietary software business says should be endorsed (see recent announcements of Microsoft's proprietary software running on GNU/Linux systems for recent examples). This is why proprietary software businesses like open source; putting a shine on preserving user subjugation is much like businesses that want to come off as environmentally-friendly but don't want to make any substantive changes in what they do so they engage in what's known as "greenwashing". "The appearance of doing the right thing is eventually more important than doing the right thing." as Brad Kuhn pointed out when discussing this similarity in his talk <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItFjEG3LaA" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=-ItFjEG3LaA</a> calling open source "openwashing". Both the older <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy<wbr>/free-software-for-freedom.<wbr>html</a> and newer <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy<wbr>/open-source-misses-the-point.<wbr>html</a> essay also address how denying a user's software freedom is entirely compatible with open source but not at all a part of the free software movement.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately the only current source I know of for Kuhn's talk is YouTube. I recommend using "youtube-dl" to download and see it so you can avoid Google's proprietary code, tracking, and specify the format you want. <a href="http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_2/Thursday/Considering_the_Future_of_Copyleft_How_Will_The_Next_Generation_Perceive_GPL.webm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub<wbr>/linux.conf.au/2015/Case_Room_<wbr>2/Thursday/Considering_the_<wbr>Future_of_Copyleft_How_Will_<wbr>The_Next_Generation_Perceive_<wbr>GPL.webm</a> used to work but appears down now.<span class="gmail-"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Taking the case of elevator software, the elevator company would pay the<br>
developer then give-away their intellectual property.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Copyrights, patents, mask rights, and other grants of power exist. These various grants of power last for different times, cover different things, and cost different amounts of money to obtain and enforce, so there are more factors separating them than uniting them. Therefore mashing them together (as the term "intellectual property" does) doesn't convey that you understand what you're talking about. Consider adding <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy<wbr>/words-to-avoid.html#<wbr>IntellectualProperty</a> to your reading list.<div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discussion@lists.fsfe.org" target="_blank">Discussion@lists.fsfe.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/discussion</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><p><span><span><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse" target="_blank">Linkedin</a> | <a href="http://www.asymptopia.org" target="_blank">E-Learning</a><br></span></span></p><p><br></p></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>