Hey Thorsten!
You bring up an interesting point: if I understood correctly you say that we should start with the 4 freedoms and then show that not having them is bad.
First of all, I actually do explore that in my work. The whole of Chapter 3 assumes that proprietary software is a problem, and explores the freedoms through that lens.
https://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philosophy&a=philosophy_freedoms#3
https://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philosophy&a=philosophy_freedoms#3
So, this is a fine way to analyze a problem.
However, to answer you question more generally, the reason why anything we postulate must be proven somehow is that if we do not do that, we are then open to postulating whatever and then acting on it, waiting for people to disprove the idea. This is a form of an argument from ignorance, which asserts that a proposition is either true or false because of lack or absence of evidence or proof to the contrary.
So, we definitely cannot start by postulating the 4 freedoms, and consider them to be right until the point someone proves otherwise. This is just invalid reasoning.
I, for one, very seriously don't see why anyone should be entitled to, say, change a program as they wish by having direct access to source code. Why should that be a basic freedom everyone has to have? On what grounds? And remember - a freedom's other side is obligation. That means that the basic obligation should be to provide source code to anyone. Why?
The response that it might be convenient to some people is too generic. Convenient in what way? I now have access to GIMP's source code. I want it to do something different. How do I make that change in real life?
Whereas you suggest a scenario when there is no source code available. To which someone might respond - look, if there is no obligation to give away source code, that means people can build businesses with software development and I wouldn't need to change very much about the program because it will be of very high quality due to people being paid for it full time and the business catering to the needs of the customers.
The goal of discussing this is to outline why access to source code is critical. You don't start by positing this as a dogma and then telling other people to argue against it - and meanwhile we will be calling those who disagree immoral and tell them that they don't want to change the world for the good. This is not a discussion if ethics, this is ideological warfare at this point.
What I am trying to do is make it into a discussion and demonstrate that one can be a FLOSS supporter, a decent person who wants good in the world, and yet disagree with what Stallman says.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David,"I don't see that you have a more convincing basis for your own decry of
abstracting a moral position into the definition of software freedoms."Not entirely sure I understand what you're saying here, but I have written a 70 page basis for disagreeing with Stallman.I know it is an investment, especially if you feel strongly about the issue. But at the very least you can appreciate that I tried to offer a convincing basis.You also say that the principles have either to be agreed with or not and that they cannot be proven. I completely disagree with that. I don't view ethics as dogma. I am a proponent of ethics derived from reason. This could be the biggest disagreement, and, in fact, a key disagreement we might have.As for the rest of the things that you've written, like that I don't want to improve the world and so on, you have made it very clear throughout this discussion that you don't want to treat me in a charitable way and instead just strawman most if not all I write. So, excuse me if I will not reply to your comments from now on. I am not offended or anything, I just don't see our conversations exploring interesting directions.--On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Thorsten Wilms <self@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 04.06.2018 11:41, Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey Thorsten!
Thank you for your comment. I have not only read Stallman, I have studied his writings very closely and wrote a large work on his philosophy which can be found here:
https://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philoso phy&a=philosophy_freedoms
That whole thing seems to depend on a reversal. It's not 4 Freedoms because non-free software is claimed to be unjust, but non-free software is said to be unjust because it denies users the 4 Freedoms. Then you continue to play down all of the associated issues. You should really try the "less is more" approach, some time.
"The problem starts once you do anything that encourages another person to use non-free software, because in doing so, they will give up the 4 freedoms."
This is not a convincing argument, because you first need to prove that these 4 freedoms matter. What problems are they solving?
How about the other way? What problems does _not_ having the 4 freedoms create?
Optional:
- You may not be allowed to run the program as you wish, for any purpose, i.e., an EULA might be in place.
Always:
- You cannot study and learn from the code.
- You cannot do even the simplest modification to adapt the program to you needs/wishes (aside from reverse engineering methods).
- You may not just hand copies to others, or point them to freely available sources to help them out / speed up collaboration.
- You may not join forces with the authors, e.g. by providing patches (aside from getting hired ...)
- You cannot modify the software for others.
- You cannot fork the project.
- You cannot pick up the project after the original author went away or perished.
- You will have a hard time working with data with no maintained, accessible program to read it left around.
Now some may say unnecessarily burdening users with those problems is wrong (/unjust/unethical/immoral).
--
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
