3 ms·
> I take issue with the idea that adding more restrictions improves freedom. Yes, but that isn't an idea the OP posted, it's an idea that you posted. A discuss
by lutusp 13y ago
> I take issue with the idea that adding more restrictions improves freedom.
Yes, but that isn't an idea the OP posted, it's an idea that you posted. A discussion of software license types doesn't automatically lead to either a preference for one kind of license over another, or the idea of governmental involvement. Those were things you made up on your own.
> If you want to download possible malware that is your choice.
Both closed and open-source code are susceptible to malware. The issues of licensing and malware are orthogonal. Closed-source code should in principle prevent malware, but it's quite obvious that it doesn't. Open-source, by being visible and readable, should reveal any vulnerabilities and prevent malware, but that doesn't work either, primarily because the more interesting vulnerabilities aren't obvious to someone reading the code.
Which means your argument is just an argument.
- happyscrappy 13y agoHe was arguing that closed source software should be disallowed. Who else but the government is going to make such rules? Yes I brought freedom into it. I agree that both open and closed will have malware, so what is the point of banning closed software if not "freedom"?
- lutusp 13y ago> He was arguing that closed source software should be disallowed. He did not make this argument. He argued that closed source has serious drawbacks -- he never suggested that it should be "disallowed". Find the word or an equivalent word -- but you must find it in his posts, not yours. If I complain about women, am I saying they should be disallowed? Only to someone who invents positions for other people, then proceeds to object to the positions he has invented. > Who else but the government is going to make such rules? Is Apple under government mandate to have a closed-source system? Is Red Hat under government mandate to have an open-source system? Neither is true. The government is not involved at all, in any way, period. > Yes I brought freedom into it. Yes, you did, after inventing arguments no one made, using claims about society that aren't part of reality. > ... so what is the point of banning closed software if not "freedom"? You fabricated this entire argument out of whole cloth. No one advocated "banning closed software", no one brought up government, no one brought up freedom. These are all parts of your private fantasy.