[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The Show So Far

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
> you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
> go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other
> people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, including myself
> think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one
> or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that
> that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep
> changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you
> don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should
> convince anyone.

Then, please, describe for me what your standard is.  What freedoms
count?  If you say "the ones listed in the DFSG, and only those", then
the tax-return requirement would be legitimate in a free software

I have a reasonable coherent notion of what constitutes a freedom.  Of
course there is nothing which prevents you from offering a different
notion, but you haven't, as far as I can recall.

You seem to take the tack that these are *all* restrictions on
freedom; then you have to say which restrictions you think are
acceptible and which you think aren't.  I've sketched out my method of
analyzing such a question, but you haven't.  Would you care to do so

Reply to: