Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On 5/19/14, Lee Winter <lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> wrote:
> A lot of people responding to this post don't seem to understand that
>> freedom applies to more than just personal choice. The United States was
>> not a free nation while it accepted slavery and Firefox is not free
>> software while it accepts digital restrictions management.
>>
>> Just as no one forced Americans to own slaves, the fact that slavery was
>> allowed was an insult to notion of freedom. Arguing that the "freedom" to
>> choose whether to own slaves or not made Americans freer would be called
>> ridiculous by any sane person, yet the same argument is being bandied
>> about
>> in this discussion as if it made any sense.
>>
>> The Free Software Foundation got this one right.
>
> The above message contains good rhetoric and execrable reasoning.
>
> The above dogma confuses two basic categories of freedoms "freedom from"
> and"freedom to". Freedom from is the ability to avoid undesirable
> situations. Freedom to is the ability to pursue desirable situations.
...
> The real argument is not about DRM restrictions. Those restrictions are
> irrelevant. The real argument is whether to allow DRM-restricted property
> (often called content) into one's own domain.
Lee, you are presenting quite a clear position. I appreciate that.
Are you aware that there is a useful (from the perspective of
freedoms) distinction to be made between physical property and
so-called 'intellectual property'?
It sounds like you are somewhat pro-freedom, yet from my position, to
use the word "property" as Jerry (and here you) are using it, in
relation to 'intellectual' things (like say mathematical algorithms),
is actually a conflation brought into our language by the pro-monopoly
pro-drm etc lobby groups.
Do you see this?
The reason I bother to highlight this at all, is that, if you wish to
do more than elucidate each side of an argument, but instead intend to
motive change into our world, then language terminology conflation is
actually a tool, often used by the forces for promoting restriction on
personal activities.
It's a tool we could potentially also use you see...
> Anyone who proposes to restrict my ability to choose, for or against,
> DRM-restricted property is making a proposition that I will _always_ res
> *ist.* After all, it is about freedom. Mine. Not some wacko theoretical
> objection based on alleged principles, but a fully personal decision on a
> care-by-case basis about the property in question.
This is a clear way to put this, thanks.
> And, for the record, I do not consider intellectual property to be morally
> equivalent to a human being. Owning property has been around for million
> of years. And I approve of that practice (see Locke). The distinction is
> that people are not and never have been property, much as some would like
> to think of other people as property.
I think historical precedent is not a strong argument against slavery,
or property ownership.
I can hold a stone, or a stick, and whilst I hold it, it is mine. When
I put it down, it could be argued to no longer be mine, but that leads
to fights too easily, so in my community, we acknowledge that
ownership of _physical_ property is something that ought be respected.
As a programmer, and a pro-GPL programmer at that, I say that the
greatest good, in general, for my community as a whole, is to license
the software I sell, under the GPL.
I acknowledge the laws we have, and that individuals can and will
choose by their will. We have the freedom to choose proprietary
distribution of our intellectual creations (again, I refrain from
using the word property).
> But, contrary to Stallman's arguments, intellectual property is real and
> worth protecting.
RMS never said intellectual creations are not real.
RMS never said intellectual creations are not worth protecting.
PLEASE cite, when you are unsure. You were doing quite well up to this point.
> Otherwise I would consider every GPL "protected" product
> to have a BSD or an MIT license. It is my respect for the owner's ability
> to set terms of use for their property that protects GPL'd products. Not
> the terms of that or any other license.
Try telling that to Jerry :)
<ducks>
Regards
Zenaan
Reply to: