Linux laptops, revisited (can any sleep like my PowerBook does?)
von at fugal.net
Tue Jan 22 00:45:50 MST 2008
* Levi Pearson [Mon, 21 Jan 2008 at 13:15 -0700]
> Lonnie Olson <lists at kittypee.com> writes:
> > No offense taken, but I think you are missing the "religious"
> > reasoning in the Free Software movement. The Free Software movement
> > reasons that every user of software has a right to each of the 4
> > freedoms outlined below.
> > * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> > * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
> > needs (freedom 1).
> > * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> > (freedom 2).
> > * The freedom to improve the program, and release your
> > improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
> > (freedom 3).
> > Any user that chooses software that strips them on one of these
> > freedoms is unfortunate. Software makers that deny these freedoms are
> > not "evil", but are unkind people by harming their customers deserved
> > freedoms.
> Yes, I'm well aware of these freedoms that the Free Software
> Foundation espouses. I agree that those things are nice. I don't
> agree that people have any intrinsic right to those things. I believe
> that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> Aside from those, you've got whatever rights that aren't restricted by
> government or community. Since those freedoms interfere with the
> right to control how your personal creations are used, they fall
> clearly in the 'negotiable rights' category, not the 'intrinsic
> rights' one. I certainly don't feel they ought to be universal.
Woah woah, hold on, stop and evaluate. Since when is the "right to
control how your personal creations are used" a God given or intrinsic
right?? I dare say it's not! Your _property_ is one thing, but as soon
as you give something to somebody else, for whatever reason, it ceases
to be your property. Can I get another AMEN!
> Any assertion that those rights *are* universal must be religious,
> since they clearly aren't fundamental to human nature and only God
> could choose to grant them universally. :P
As well to copyright.
> > Now, if you don't believe the 4 freedoms are beneficial to our
> > society, then I would understand your feelings. But I get the
> > distinct impression that you feel these freedoms are beneficial. What
> > is wrong with educating people about the unkind, freedom restricting
> > acts of non-free software developers?
> That would be mis-education based on a faulty understanding (or
> correct understanding and deliberate misuse) of heavily-loaded terms
> like 'freedom' and 'right'. Copying or modifying someone's software
> against their will is just as unkind, and telling them that they can't
> exercise their copyright is just as freedom-restricting. Telling
> people that everyone ought to have these four freedoms doesn't make it
> so. Calling people who release their software under different terms
> 'unkind' is just being childish and anti-social.
Yeah, calling the FSF principles "rights" might be in poor taste, but
copyright itself is absolutely in poor taste itself. I'm not totally
against copyright, I think it has in cases some merit. But to call it
a "right" just rocks my boat.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080122/5393461a/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG