4 ms·

Depends on how define "freedom". I should have the "freedom" to block off my street at night, because the traffic keeps me awake. But dang society (and laws) d

Depends on how define "freedom". I should have the "freedom" to block off my street at night, because the traffic keeps me awake. But dang society (and laws) don't let me do that! Clearly, my "freedom" is being impinged by others! Right? /s

hga 12y ago
Thing is, society gives you several options to deal with the real problem short of enclosing a public commons: Don't move into such a place. If it becomes such a place, leave (it'll be more valuable, so you should be able to make a profit if an owner, or pay less in rent). If it's people illicitly making too much noise, sic the authorities on them (although now in the US I'd hesitate to do that unless the situation is life and death, and often even not then).
overgard 12y ago
That's not really a correct analogy though. If I take a piece of software and keep my changes to myself, it would be fair to say that I'm antisocial and selfish, but overall I have not negatively impacted anything -- I've simply refused to reciprocate the benefit I've received. That makes me a jerk, but objectively nothing bad has happened. Whereas if you were to block off your street, you're actively depriving people of a service, etc. In this case RMS is actively refusing a feature that would be a boon for many people, because he want's to make sure it doesn't help people he dislikes. IMO, that's on the same level of companies obfuscating file formats so people can't build off their products. That's not defending freedom, it's just being a prick.
- yarrel 12y ago
  > If I take a piece of software and keep my changes to myself, it would be fair to say that I'm antisocial and selfish, but overall I have not negatively impacted anything -- I've simply refused to reciprocate the benefit I've received. That makes me a jerk, but objectively nothing bad has happened. The GPL explicitly allows you to be a jerk in this way. It just doesn't allow you to then jerk other people around by sending the software you've modified to other people without the same rights that you exercised in order to be a jerk in the first place. Because then something objectively bad would have happened. > In this case RMS is actively refusing a feature that would be a boone (sic) for many people, because he want's to make sure it doesn't help people he dislikes. Phrasing this emotionally ("dislikes") is weak. These are not people rms (or anyone else) "dislikes", they are people who want to remove your freedom to use software. > That's not defending freedom, it's just being a prick. Well no. It's preventing non-free software from being written. Which is defending freedom. You're simply arguing for different collateral damage. rms is happy to have less software written if it prevents the production of non-free software. He's preventing harm. You're happy to have more software written but don't care if that includes software that doesn't let people use it freely. You're allowing harm. Neither of you is being a prick, at least not in your politics.
  - overgard 12y ago
    > Phrasing this emotionally ("dislikes") is weak. These are not people rms (or anyone else) "dislikes", they are people who want to remove your freedom to use software. How is disallowing a feature for political reasons any different than this? This is a useful feature that he's refusing, that people want, because it might help out the bad guys. He's basically willing to screw over his customers (the users), to make a point. > You're happy to have more software written but don't care if that includes software that doesn't let people use it freely. You're allowing harm. Lol. I make software. I want people to use it, and I want to make money for my efforts. I have zero interests in their politics. To me, that's freedom. If that's "allowing harm" I will happily do it. Let me give some credentials here. I make a plugin for unity 3d. I sell it. It's not my day job, but I do make some money from it. When I sell it, I also include the source code, because I realize that developers are sometimes going to need to customize this product for their own needs. Even if they distribute what they do (which I hope they do! That's the point right?), I don't ask that they contribute their changes back, because that was their blood sweat and tears and they already paid their due (IE, the price of the product). Good for them. I'd be incredibly appreciative if they contributed their changes back, but they already paid their due, so I ask nothing of them. To me, although this particular thing is not the BSD license, I feel like it's in the spirit of that. "Here's some code, contribute back if you can". The GPL license on the other hand seems pretty un-inclusive. It's basically like, "here's some software... You can use it I guess but we mostly meant this for people that follow our cause..." The entire thing seems incredibly political, which makes me uninterested since I don't subscribe to their cause for various reasons.

hga 12y ago

Thing is, society gives you several options to deal with the real problem short of enclosing a public commons: Don't move into such a place. If it becomes such a place, leave (it'll be more valuable, so you should be able to make a profit if an owner, or pay less in rent). If it's people illicitly making too much noise, sic the authorities on them (although now in the US I'd hesitate to do that unless the situation is life and death, and often even not then).

overgard 12y ago

That's not really a correct analogy though. If I take a piece of software and keep my changes to myself, it would be fair to say that I'm antisocial and selfish, but overall I have not negatively impacted anything -- I've simply refused to reciprocate the benefit I've received. That makes me a jerk, but objectively nothing bad has happened. Whereas if you were to block off your street, you're actively depriving people of a service, etc. In this case RMS is actively refusing a feature that would be a boon for many people, because he want's to make sure it doesn't help people he dislikes. IMO, that's on the same level of companies obfuscating file formats so people can't build off their products. That's not defending freedom, it's just being a prick.

yarrel 12y ago
> If I take a piece of software and keep my changes to myself, it would be fair to say that I'm antisocial and selfish, but overall I have not negatively impacted anything -- I've simply refused to reciprocate the benefit I've received. That makes me a jerk, but objectively nothing bad has happened. The GPL explicitly allows you to be a jerk in this way. It just doesn't allow you to then jerk other people around by sending the software you've modified to other people without the same rights that you exercised in order to be a jerk in the first place. Because then something objectively bad would have happened. > In this case RMS is actively refusing a feature that would be a boone (sic) for many people, because he want's to make sure it doesn't help people he dislikes. Phrasing this emotionally ("dislikes") is weak. These are not people rms (or anyone else) "dislikes", they are people who want to remove your freedom to use software. > That's not defending freedom, it's just being a prick. Well no. It's preventing non-free software from being written. Which is defending freedom. You're simply arguing for different collateral damage. rms is happy to have less software written if it prevents the production of non-free software. He's preventing harm. You're happy to have more software written but don't care if that includes software that doesn't let people use it freely. You're allowing harm. Neither of you is being a prick, at least not in your politics.
- overgard 12y ago
  > Phrasing this emotionally ("dislikes") is weak. These are not people rms (or anyone else) "dislikes", they are people who want to remove your freedom to use software. How is disallowing a feature for political reasons any different than this? This is a useful feature that he's refusing, that people want, because it might help out the bad guys. He's basically willing to screw over his customers (the users), to make a point. > You're happy to have more software written but don't care if that includes software that doesn't let people use it freely. You're allowing harm. Lol. I make software. I want people to use it, and I want to make money for my efforts. I have zero interests in their politics. To me, that's freedom. If that's "allowing harm" I will happily do it. Let me give some credentials here. I make a plugin for unity 3d. I sell it. It's not my day job, but I do make some money from it. When I sell it, I also include the source code, because I realize that developers are sometimes going to need to customize this product for their own needs. Even if they distribute what they do (which I hope they do! That's the point right?), I don't ask that they contribute their changes back, because that was their blood sweat and tears and they already paid their due (IE, the price of the product). Good for them. I'd be incredibly appreciative if they contributed their changes back, but they already paid their due, so I ask nothing of them. To me, although this particular thing is not the BSD license, I feel like it's in the spirit of that. "Here's some code, contribute back if you can". The GPL license on the other hand seems pretty un-inclusive. It's basically like, "here's some software... You can use it I guess but we mostly meant this for people that follow our cause..." The entire thing seems incredibly political, which makes me uninterested since I don't subscribe to their cause for various reasons.