4 ms·

Yes, but not this time. If that sentence were dropped, the remaining text would be more clear and accurate. That sentence is not true. Why should a user be a d

by dwc 16y ago

Yes, but not this time. If that sentence were dropped, the remaining text would be more clear and accurate. That sentence is not true. Why should a user be a developer in an ideal world? Why should one be required to be a developer to utilize software? It's not even a world that anyone really wants to move toward. The whole idea is very developer-centric, and doesn't represent an enlightened user perspective.

SwellJoe 16y ago
The point of my comment was that I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer. Not that they must be a developer. No one, especially me, has suggested that anyone must do anything. We're talking about freedom here; and I'd like it if users had the same freedoms I've enjoyed over the past couple of decades. That includes having source available for a large percentage of the software I used, so I that I could learn from it and modify it. No one forced me to become a developer in order to use Firefox, but I've always had the freedom to look at and modify the Firefox code (and thus I could, at any moment and without warning or asking permission, transition from being a Firefox user to being a Firefox developer). I think "developer" is a pretty fluid concept, in an ideal world. Anyway, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it is the difference between "may" and "must". You believe I am saying "must", when my intention is "may".
- dwc 16y ago
  Ah, there's "freedom" again, considered only from one perspective. What about the freedom of someone to make their own work available as closed source? What about when it's a derived work that adds novel new functionality? The FSF is against the freedom to do this, because it promotes other freedoms they like better. What if my important set of freedoms isn't a perfect fit with theirs? What if some random users' important set isn't a perfect match with either mine or the FSF's? If freedom is really what you're after, picking some things at the expense of others can get tricky very fast. If you really want freedom, perhaps you can give away all the rights, so that the recipient can decide what they want to do? After all, you still have the code and you can keep giving it away. This is the new BSD license, or MIT license, or ISC license. According to any non-skewed definition of "freedom" they are more free. Objectively. But maybe you want kind of free, free in some narrow ways that preserve things important to you by putting restrictions on those who get your code so that they also have to preserve the same things you like. If so then that's fine! I totally support your right as the author to choose an appropriate license. But that's not about freedom. It's about propagating your view of how things should be. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it's not about freedom.
  - SwellJoe 16y ago
    No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license. I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open source or free software community is a good thing. As I mentioned in my first comment, I'm not speaking specifically of the GPL. I happen to like the license, but if you don't, that's fine. I have, nowhere in this conversation, suggested that only the GPL allows the kind of freedom I'm speaking of. The freedom I am speaking of is about building a culture of being able to look at, learn from, modify, and contribute to, the software I (and others) use. And, nowhere have I suggested that only the GPL makes that possible; though I do think RMS and the FSF (and, yes, the GPL) deserve some credit for building the culture we currently enjoy.
    - cschwarm 16y ago
      When someone calls rape immoral, does he want to say that rape is a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against rape, and every violation should be punished? When Stallman calls "non-free" software immoral, does he want to say that it's a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against publishing non-free software, and violations should be punished?
      - SwellJoe 16y ago
        I consider killing pigs and cows for food, when there are good alternative sources of food available that require no cruelty, immoral. But, I do not seek to impose my morality on others by force of law. He has, to my knowledge, never suggested there should be a law against producing non-free software. I have certainly never made such a suggestion in this thread.
        cschwarm 16y ago
        Then, you're misunderstanding the word "immoral". To quote Steven Pinker from "The blank slate" (p.269): "People feel that that moral rules are universal. Injunctions against murder and rape, for example, are not matters of taste or fashion but have a trancendent and universal warrent. People feel that other who commit immoral acts ought to be punished: not only is it right to inflict harm on people who have commmited a immoral infraction, it is wrong not to, that is, to "let them get away with it,"... You have never suggested a law, but that's what the Free Software movement is about: In Stallman's mind -- and to those who understand him - , publishing non-free software is not just a matter of taste or fashion -- it's immoral and wrong; just like murder, rape, and stealing. It must be punished.
- brudgers 16y ago
  >"I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer." People have that freedom now. Having the sort access to the source code of a large percentage of the software one uses is not a necessary condition for becoming a software developer nor for learning programming. I suspect that most people first learned programming starting with trivial problems or by typing in examples.

by dwc 16y ago

SwellJoe 16y ago

The point of my comment was that I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer. Not that they must be a developer. No one, especially me, has suggested that anyone must do anything. We're talking about freedom here; and I'd like it if users had the same freedoms I've enjoyed over the past couple of decades. That includes having source available for a large percentage of the software I used, so I that I could learn from it and modify it. No one forced me to become a developer in order to use Firefox, but I've always had the freedom to look at and modify the Firefox code (and thus I could, at any moment and without warning or asking permission, transition from being a Firefox user to being a Firefox developer). I think "developer" is a pretty fluid concept, in an ideal world. Anyway, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it is the difference between "may" and "must". You believe I am saying "must", when my intention is "may".

dwc 16y ago
Ah, there's "freedom" again, considered only from one perspective. What about the freedom of someone to make their own work available as closed source? What about when it's a derived work that adds novel new functionality? The FSF is against the freedom to do this, because it promotes other freedoms they like better. What if my important set of freedoms isn't a perfect fit with theirs? What if some random users' important set isn't a perfect match with either mine or the FSF's? If freedom is really what you're after, picking some things at the expense of others can get tricky very fast. If you really want freedom, perhaps you can give away all the rights, so that the recipient can decide what they want to do? After all, you still have the code and you can keep giving it away. This is the new BSD license, or MIT license, or ISC license. According to any non-skewed definition of "freedom" they are more free. Objectively. But maybe you want kind of free, free in some narrow ways that preserve things important to you by putting restrictions on those who get your code so that they also have to preserve the same things you like. If so then that's fine! I totally support your right as the author to choose an appropriate license. But that's not about freedom. It's about propagating your view of how things should be. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it's not about freedom.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license. I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open source or free software community is a good thing. As I mentioned in my first comment, I'm not speaking specifically of the GPL. I happen to like the license, but if you don't, that's fine. I have, nowhere in this conversation, suggested that only the GPL allows the kind of freedom I'm speaking of. The freedom I am speaking of is about building a culture of being able to look at, learn from, modify, and contribute to, the software I (and others) use. And, nowhere have I suggested that only the GPL makes that possible; though I do think RMS and the FSF (and, yes, the GPL) deserve some credit for building the culture we currently enjoy.
  - cschwarm 16y ago
    When someone calls rape immoral, does he want to say that rape is a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against rape, and every violation should be punished? When Stallman calls "non-free" software immoral, does he want to say that it's a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against publishing non-free software, and violations should be punished?
    - SwellJoe 16y ago
      I consider killing pigs and cows for food, when there are good alternative sources of food available that require no cruelty, immoral. But, I do not seek to impose my morality on others by force of law. He has, to my knowledge, never suggested there should be a law against producing non-free software. I have certainly never made such a suggestion in this thread.
      - cschwarm 16y ago
        Then, you're misunderstanding the word "immoral". To quote Steven Pinker from "The blank slate" (p.269): "People feel that that moral rules are universal. Injunctions against murder and rape, for example, are not matters of taste or fashion but have a trancendent and universal warrent. People feel that other who commit immoral acts ought to be punished: not only is it right to inflict harm on people who have commmited a immoral infraction, it is wrong not to, that is, to "let them get away with it,"... You have never suggested a law, but that's what the Free Software movement is about: In Stallman's mind -- and to those who understand him - , publishing non-free software is not just a matter of taste or fashion -- it's immoral and wrong; just like murder, rape, and stealing. It must be punished.
brudgers 16y ago
>"I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer." People have that freedom now. Having the sort access to the source code of a large percentage of the software one uses is not a necessary condition for becoming a software developer nor for learning programming. I suspect that most people first learned programming starting with trivial problems or by typing in examples.