Thorsten Wilms <self@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 04.06.2018 15:48, Louigi Verona wrote: > >> 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. > > No, actually I wanted to point out that you got the order > wrong. "non-free software is immoral" is not the root. > > The 4 Freedoms are _not_ postulated as a solution to a problem, they are > descriptive of the situation Stallman experienced as status quo early > on. Which then got eroded. Well, there is <https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html> if you want to see the order of things. First Stallman describes the old state of things, then how it got eroded and he decided not to play along. The formal definition of software freedom that tries capturing what was being eroded comes later on. > One may argue against all of those; I don't think this can be reduced > to pure reason, as you always run into doubt of what may or does > actually happen and at some point you require value judgements. > > I'm curious how your "anything must be proven" approach fares with so > called basic human rights. Frankly, the kind of history and reasoning Stallman gives that he was at first disturbed at how things were going, and later pissed off (the idea of the GNU project was inspired by the initial MIT events, the GPL is basically his answer to getting pissed off by Gosling turning Gosling Emacs proprietary after Stallman had already invested considerable work into it). It's really much more a practical philosophy in reaction to events he could not condone than some theoretical construct. Just a bit overengineered. Turns out that overengineering pessimism is actually hard to do in our world. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
