4 ms·

The freedom argument immediately falls apart when asked to define "computer." Stallman appeared to be fine with his TI-30, but not the Xerox printer driver at

The freedom argument immediately falls apart when asked to define "computer." Stallman appeared to be fine with his TI-30, but not the Xerox printer driver at CSAIL. What would he think of the flight control system of the plane he boarded for his all-expenses paid talk in Redmond?

User23 5y ago
Freedom isn't an argument, it's a principle. It doesn't have anything to do with computers per se. Look at the right to repair issues with tractors and other equipment that vendors actively stop their owners from repairing. We should be free to do as we wish with the machines we buy. If that's a PCB calculator we should be free to take it apart, desolder, and make whatever modifications we like. If it's a programmable computer, which includes PostScript printers, then we should be free to modify its programming. I'm going to hazard a guess that he'd say the owner of the plane should at the very least be able to inspect the source code and compile it. I won't speculate as to whether he would say the owner of the plane should be free to modify the software in a way that made the plane less safe, but I would hope not.
- jimmyvalmer 5y ago
  Freedom is a principle. Using it to legislate consumer law is an argument, a bad one.
- tremon 5y ago
  But speculation is half the fun! I'd hazard a guess that he would say that the owner of the plane should in fact be "free" to modify the control software of the plane, but that the owner (airline) would then be required to re-certify the plane as well. And that might mean that the Free argument extends to the airworthiness test suite used by the manufacturer as well.
zekrioca 5y ago
This “bynarism” of you with freedom is interesting. Freedom is also a spectrum. First, “computer” is related to the machinery, whereas “compute” is with the concept of manipulating information, from where the morals being talked about in the article and from where freedom arise. Second, I wonder why someone who defends freedom in the software realm has to cope with all “permutations” of all device drivers. You may make mistakes at times, and you may be right, wrong, neutral, not necessarily in this order.

User23 5y ago

Freedom isn't an argument, it's a principle. It doesn't have anything to do with computers per se. Look at the right to repair issues with tractors and other equipment that vendors actively stop their owners from repairing. We should be free to do as we wish with the machines we buy. If that's a PCB calculator we should be free to take it apart, desolder, and make whatever modifications we like. If it's a programmable computer, which includes PostScript printers, then we should be free to modify its programming. I'm going to hazard a guess that he'd say the owner of the plane should at the very least be able to inspect the source code and compile it. I won't speculate as to whether he would say the owner of the plane should be free to modify the software in a way that made the plane less safe, but I would hope not.

jimmyvalmer 5y ago
Freedom is a principle. Using it to legislate consumer law is an argument, a bad one.
tremon 5y ago
But speculation is half the fun! I'd hazard a guess that he would say that the owner of the plane should in fact be "free" to modify the control software of the plane, but that the owner (airline) would then be required to re-certify the plane as well. And that might mean that the Free argument extends to the airworthiness test suite used by the manufacturer as well.

zekrioca 5y ago

This “bynarism” of you with freedom is interesting. Freedom is also a spectrum. First, “computer” is related to the machinery, whereas “compute” is with the concept of manipulating information, from where the morals being talked about in the article and from where freedom arise. Second, I wonder why someone who defends freedom in the software realm has to cope with all “permutations” of all device drivers. You may make mistakes at times, and you may be right, wrong, neutral, not necessarily in this order.