On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:14:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my > response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his > DFSG-interpretation proposal. > > Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitution to DFSG's case > law, they have a lot in common with the US constitution, in that they > don't explicitly guarantee a right to privacy. So, see below. See my remark elsewhere about Debian possibly having "Five Freedoms". Reading the Ninth Amendment as meaningless because it doesn't enumerate any rights is not a good way to score rhetorical points with me. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Modern jurisprudence appears to read this as follows: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed to mean that the people have no others. > Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but > don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under > certain conditions. [...] > Interestingly, neither the FSF's four freedoms, nor FDR's four freedoms > (wink) include privacy. I don't think this is interesting at all. It's a thoughtless oversight. -- G. Branden Robinson | Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, Debian GNU/Linux | and I have disposable income that branden@debian.org | I'll spend to find out how to get http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | people more of it. -- Penn Jillette
Attachment:
pgpZ0LkaG_tQ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature