I also cannot comprehend it
It' easy - one example is some groups object to liberal notions of education on the pretext of religious belief. The broader paradox this example articulates is freedom is contingent on each individual human person having the right to refuse the terms on which freedom is being represented (often called 'rights').
a decision for non-free software can be reversed at any point
Yes, but if software is 'copyleft', then bringing it back into proprietary control is complex. Under Berne Convention, all software is originated assuming 'all rights reserved', and then a license can create a gradient from highly restricted proprietary rights to highly lax, free software - with some licences in-between being a bit ambiguous to me.
I think writing non-free software is a different question and perhaps should not happen, but I have not completly figured that out for myself yet.
Proprietary software has to happen, because that's the way international copyright law is configured, and sometimes code is kept private, sometimes for better and often for worse. It's important to understand the context for the software, whether it is intimate, personal, social or public. The sooner FS advocates abandon attempts to control and influence individual computer users, and concentrate on social and public (institutional) use, the better the outcomes will be - the 'public money, public code' is an exemplary effort IMO but writing plugins to prevent people connecting to Facebook on the grounds of promoting free software is a fools errand because it undermines the rights computer users must have to connect with whatever they can.
I don't like FB, but I do like the rights people have to connect to that platform, as misguided as I am sure we agree it is?
Hi Mat,
Mat Witts admin@yuj.it writes:
I also cannot comprehend it
It' easy - one example is some groups object to liberal notions of education on the pretext of religious belief.
I used comprehend here differently. I would argue people have the right to give up their freedoms, but I don't know why they would from a theoretical perspective. From a practical perspective, I understand that people will give reasons, but I cannot help but feel that those reasons are misguided.
a decision for non-free software can be reversed at any point
Yes, but if software is 'copyleft', then bringing it back into proprietary control is complex.
I don't understand how the two are related. I was talking about how someone migh decide for themselves that they want to use proprietary software X, but they can decide differently at any later point. I was not talking about turning Free Software into proprietary software. I would not want anyone to do that.
Proprietary software has to happen, because that's the way international copyright law is configured,
Do you mean "has to happen" in the sense of "it is inevitable" or do you mean it ought to happen?
I don't like FB, but I do like the rights people have to connect to that platform, as misguided as I am sure we agree it is?
I agree, people have and should have the right to connect to services we deem problematic. But the original suggestion was not to prevent people from connecting in any case. The idea was to write a plugin that people can voluntarily install and then it would warn them of potentially harmful practices. So someone who wants to support the Free Software movement, but does not know the details yet could use such a plugin to become more aware of some issues and avoid sending links that other people might object to.
Happy hacking! Florian