3 ms·

The reason you deserve to have access to the code you run is because it's the only way for you to trust it. Code you don't have access to has a tendency to bet

The reason you deserve to have access to the code you run is because it's the only way for you to trust it. Code you don't have access to has a tendency to betray you with various "features" (spying, arbitrary limitations…), that just wouldn't be there if you had access to the code. In my view, resorting to state violence to prevent such treason is perfectly justified. What you call "purer freedom" is actually negative freedom, which is about not forbidding. The GPL promotes positive freedom, which is about enabling. As we can see when we compare the GPL and permissive licences, the GPL is more effective at enabling everyone to look at the source code. For me, that's what counts. I don't care about how "pure" the freedom is, I just care about it's effectiveness. Lastly, you said "Free software […] is incompatible with privacy and property rights". "Privacy" was appropriately used, but I think you tossed "property" without much thought, using its positive and undeniable aura.

baddox 16y ago
Are you saying your and/or the Free Software Movement's philosophy goes like this: Since access to code is the only way to trust software, everyone deserves the right to the access? The only way I'll be able to have a Ferrari is if it's sold to me for only a few thousand dollars. Does that mean I a deserve a Ferrari for a few thousand dollars? Something being preferable doesn't mean it's deserved. How can this be a negative vs. positive freedom argument? Not distributing source code places restriction on the client, while forcing developers to distribute source code places restriction on the developers. Either way, if software usage is restricted at all, then someone's freedoms are going to be restricted. The only solution I see is for there to be no legal protection of software, period. I used "property" to refer to the physical hard drive holding your data, as well as your house and land. Of course, many argue that privacy rights follow logically from property rights, so the distinction probably isn't necessary.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  I certainly did not want to say that for any A and B, if the only way to have B is to have A, then we must have A. In some case, however, B is either a fundamental right, or is necessary to exercise that right. Here, B is the right to privacy and free speech. To exercise your right to free speech, the only reasonable way is to use the Internet. And you need to run computer code to do that. Similarly, to protect your privacy, the code you run (all of it) has to be trustworthy. And I say that to be trustworthy, the code must be free, at least for you. Conclusion: running free code (and only free code) is necessary to exercise some fundamental rights. Therefore, everyone deserve it. The positive/negative freedom argument comes from the facts that (0) the four freedom are way more important than the freedom to proprietarize software, and (1) they conflict. If you want to preserve the greater freedoms, you have to sacrifice the lesser one. Now, people could be reasonable, and respect the four freedom even when they are allowed not to. But I think we can agree that many people aren't reasonable (the most famous example was X). I now understand your usage of the word "property" was indeed legitimate.

baddox 16y ago

Are you saying your and/or the Free Software Movement's philosophy goes like this: Since access to code is the only way to trust software, everyone deserves the right to the access? The only way I'll be able to have a Ferrari is if it's sold to me for only a few thousand dollars. Does that mean I a deserve a Ferrari for a few thousand dollars? Something being preferable doesn't mean it's deserved. How can this be a negative vs. positive freedom argument? Not distributing source code places restriction on the client, while forcing developers to distribute source code places restriction on the developers. Either way, if software usage is restricted at all, then someone's freedoms are going to be restricted. The only solution I see is for there to be no legal protection of software, period. I used "property" to refer to the physical hard drive holding your data, as well as your house and land. Of course, many argue that privacy rights follow logically from property rights, so the distinction probably isn't necessary.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
I certainly did not want to say that for any A and B, if the only way to have B is to have A, then we must have A. In some case, however, B is either a fundamental right, or is necessary to exercise that right. Here, B is the right to privacy and free speech. To exercise your right to free speech, the only reasonable way is to use the Internet. And you need to run computer code to do that. Similarly, to protect your privacy, the code you run (all of it) has to be trustworthy. And I say that to be trustworthy, the code must be free, at least for you. Conclusion: running free code (and only free code) is necessary to exercise some fundamental rights. Therefore, everyone deserve it. The positive/negative freedom argument comes from the facts that (0) the four freedom are way more important than the freedom to proprietarize software, and (1) they conflict. If you want to preserve the greater freedoms, you have to sacrifice the lesser one. Now, people could be reasonable, and respect the four freedom even when they are allowed not to. But I think we can agree that many people aren't reasonable (the most famous example was X). I now understand your usage of the word "property" was indeed legitimate.